' This criminal revision is filed against the order, dated 11-4-1997 passed by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby, he allowed an application moved under section 540, Cr.P.C. For the re-examination of Dr. Arshad Ali who had appeared at the trial of a Sessions case as P.W.9. It was contended in the application that the reexamination of the said P.W. Was necessitated because it could not be asked from the doctor whether or not the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the reexamination was allegedly essential to promote the ends of justice. The petition was opposed in the Court below that re-examination of a witness could only be allowed in view of the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The aforesaid clause laid down that the re-examination of a witness shall be directed to the explanation of the matters referred to in cross-examination, and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re- examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine on that matter. In the instant case, since no explanation was required regarding a matter referred to in the cross-examination, therefore, there was no necessity to re-examine the Medical Officer, which if examined would allegedly prejudice the accused in their trial and would also grant undeserved permission to the prosecution over the defence. To put the aforesaid question to the doctor was a clear omission on the part of the prosecution and since it amounted to negligence, therefore, they did not deserve any indulgence for the re-examination of the Medical Officer in respect of the matter in issue.
2. The learned trial Court did not agree with the above points and decided the petition in favour of the complainant/prosecutor to alldw him to re-examine the Medical Officer to put a question whether or not the injuries on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the learned trial Judge, it would help in arriving at. The just and proper decision rather to help any side.
3. The same points have been raised in this revision petition with the plea that the conclusion arrived . At by the learned trial Court in allowing the application was erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. It was allegedly an abuse of the discretion vested under section 540, Cr.P.C. Which ought to have been exercised judiciously instead of arbitrarily. Since the matter was allegedly determined by the learned trial Judge in arbitrary manner and in total disregard Of the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, therefore, the impugned order was alleged to be bad in the eyes of law.
4. I Have given my careful attention to the matter in issue and find that the Medical Officer namely Dr. Arshad Ali was examined at the trial as P.W.9. He had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had prepared the post-mortem report as Exh.P.C. While giving his opinion about the cause of death, he did not state in the report whether or not, the A injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
He also omitted to state so when he was examined as P.W.9 nor any question to that effect was put in the examination-in-chief. It, therefore, appears that it was a bona fide omission in the medical evidence which needed "Cr clarification in order to determine the nature of the offence committed by the offenders in this case. The discretion exercised by the learned trial Court for reexamination of the witness is in no way offensive either to the provisions contained in Article 133 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 or to the principle laid down in section 540, Cr.P.C. Rather it appears that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court legally vested in it which was exercised in judicious manner in order to determine the real question regarding the nature of offence. In such a situation, the impugned order is neither unjust nor fanciful or beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge. The revision petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.
Criminal Miscellaneous No,332/M of 1997
5. With the disposal of the main petition, this Criminal Miscellaneous also stands disposed of.