' This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 13-4-1999 passed by Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan, Special Judge (Central), Multan whereby he disallowed the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 4, which was previously allowed by him vide order, dated 20-12-1994. In that order while accepting the application moved by the petitioners/accused under section 540, Cr.P.C. P.Ws.
Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ghani and Muhammad Sharif were directed to be recalled for their cross-examination by the defence. Later on the petitioners/accused filed an application under section 249-A read with section 403, Cr.P.C. Wherein it was contended that they were previously tried and acquitted on the same charges which were levelled in the present case and as such the present trial was barred under section 403, Cr.P.C. And they were entitled to acquittal. That application was dismissed vide order, dated 13-4-1999 against which the present revision petition has been filed. Earlier to that a quashment petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,8/Q of 1995) was filed by the petitioners/accused for the quashment of order, dated 20-12-1994 whereby the petition under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Was declined. The aforesaid quashment petition was disposed of by my learned brother Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J. Vide order, dated 4-12-1998 with the observation that the petitioners/accused shall be given opportunity to produce certified copies of the documents in defence to show that the provisions of section 403, Cr.P.C. Were applicable. After that decision the petitioners/accused again filed a petition under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 403, Cr.P.C.
That they were entitled to acquittal,. Which was disposed of vide impugned order, dated 13-4-1999 resulting into the filing of this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he would not press this petition to the extent of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. At this stage as he would like to produce the relevant documents showing that petitioners/accused were tried previously by a Court at Sahiwal on the tame charges and were acquitted. In this regard, it is further submitted that relevant documents have already been tendered in defence. The only grievance expressed during the arguments is that the learned trial Court declined cross-examination of Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ghani and Muhammad Sharif P.Ws. Which was previously allowed vide order, dated 20-12-1994 on the ground that the High Court while disposing of the quashment petition had not permitted the same except that certified copies of the documents as aforesaid shall be produced in defence. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the quashment petition the resummoning of the aforesaid witnesses was not the subject-matter nor the same was taken into consideration while disposing of the said petition. It was, therefore, not necessary that any observation would have been made in respect of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners has added that although the aforenamed witnesses were permitted to be cross- examined, but at that time the prayer could not be made for the cross-examination of Ikhlaq Hussain, Investigating Officer, who appeared as a witness later on.
3. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that witnesses once allowed to be summoned and cross-examined would not be disallowed later on vide the impugned order which would be apparently against the law.
4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that he would have no objection regarding the summoning and cross-examination of the aforesaid three witnesses, but there was no such permission regarding the summoning and cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and therefore, he cannot be summoned at this stage.
5. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that resummoning and cross-examining of Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ghani and Muhammad Sharif was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order, dated 20-12-1994. The prayer of the petitioners was accepted and they never felt aggrieved of such summoning. The same, therefore, could not subsequently be declined by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order only because there was no such mention in the order passed by this Court on the quashment petition, dated 4-12-1998. The perusal of that order clearly showed that there was no observation that the aforesaid witnesses shall not be resummoned or cross-examined as directed in the order of the learned trial Court, dated 20-12-1994. As such the learned trial Court has taken erroneous view to come to the conclusion that since there was no mention of the resummoning or cross-examining these witnesses, therefore, the petitioners would not resummon or cross-examine them. The impugned order is therefore, set aside with- the direction that prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ghani and Muhammad Sharif shall be recalled for cross-examination by the defence. Likewise the Investigating Officer being an important witness shall also be allowed to be resummoned and cross-examined. However, decision in respect of application under section 403, Cr.P.C. Shall be taken by trial Court while disposing of the case in hand. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above with the observation that the trial shall be concluded within one month after the receipt of this order by fixing the case for day to day hearing. If need be, the petitioners/accused shall be allowed to make supplementary statements under section 340, Cr.P.C. Read with section 342, Cr.P.C. In the light of reexamination of the aforesaid witnesses.