This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 29-5-1996 passed by Syed Afzal Hussain Kazmi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin whereby he dismissed the petition under section 540, Cr.P.C. For summoning Raja Manzoor Ahmad, S.P. Crime Branch, Range Crime, Gujranwala as a Court witness.
2. It is contended that the petitioner is a complainant in a case registered against the respondents under section 302/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin. He made an application for summoning Abdul Hameed Bajwa, Inspector Police as he had recovered rifle 7MM.
From Mukhtar Ahmad one of the accused and recorded the statements of P.Ws., to that effect. He had also arrested the accused. The other proposed witness namely Raja Manzoor Ahmad, S.P.
Crime Branch, Gujranwala had allegedly conducted the investigation of this case and had found the accused guilty upon which they were challaned. However, their names were not included in the calendar of witnesses in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. As such a petition was made for summoning them as Court witnesses. The learned trial Court partly allowed the application and directed that Abdul Hameed Bajwa, Inspector Police be summoned as he had effected the recovery from one of the accused and had also arrested the accused in this case. However, the prayer to the extent of Raja Manzoor Ahmad, S.P. Crime Branch, Gujranwala was disallowed on the ground that he had given opinion about the guilt of the accused and as such he was not a necessary witness because such opinion was not admissible in evidence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding of the learned trial Court on the ground that Raja Manzoor Ahmad, SP, Crime Branch, Gujranwala had partly investigated the case and since he had found the accused persons as guilty on the basis of evidence collected by him, therefore, he was a necessary witness to be examined at the trial.
4. I have considered the above submission and have also gone through the copies of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Attached with the petition. The occurrence took place in May, 1990, whereas the challan was submitted to the Court for trial by the SHO concerned on 3-10-1991. The trial started in the Court of Session and the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the learned ADA vide his statement dated 13-2-1996. But no request was made from the side of the prosecutor for summoning of the aforenamed witnesses as Court witnesses. However, the matter was agitated by the complainant when the trial in the case was almost complete. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not indicate the present stage of the case though it was fixed in the trial Court for today. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to tell as to what for the case was fixed for today. He however, contended as pointed out above that evidence of Raja Manzoor Ahmad, S.P. Crime Branch, Gujranwala was necessary on the ground that he had partly investigated the case, but as pointed out above no request was earlier made that the said witness was necessary to be examined at the trial. No request was even now made from the State that the evidence of the aforesaid witness was necessary. In such a situation, the discretion vested in the learned trial Judge under section 540, Cr.P.C. Seems to be unexceptionable, particularly when he took the view that the evidence of the aforesaid police officer was not admissible and as such his examination as Court witness would not be necessary. The prosecution has-- already closed its case and necessary evidence has already been brought on record. In addition to that the evidence of Abdul Hameed Bajwa, Inspector Police was considered necessary and he has already been summoned by the learned trial Court as a Court witness. The order passed by the learned trial Court is well within the ambit of law. It is neither capricious nor arbitrary. There is no force in this Revision Petition and the same is dismissed in limine.