MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal has been preferred against an order passed by the Shariat Court on11-2-2000, whereby the revision petition filed by the State was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that respondents, herein, are facing their trial in a case registered against them under section 307/34, A.P.C. Read with sections 5 and- 15 of Islamic Penal Laws Act before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Rawalakot. Tahir Sarwar, one of the prosecution witnesses in the case, was summoned by the trial Court for the purpose of recording his evidence but despite availing the numerous opportunities the prosecution failed to produce the said witness before the Court. Finally on 26-8-1999, his evidence was closed by the trial Court. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Criminal Court Rawalakot, the State preferred a revision petition before the Shariat Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order, dated February 11, 2000. It, is the aforesaid order which is the subject of present appeal filed by Muhammad Hafeez Khan, the father of Mehmood Khan, deceased.
3. It has been contended by Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the trial of the case was not concluded for the reason that the accused respondents had been trying to prolong the proceedings so that the important prosecution witnesses may not be able to appear before the Court and depose their evidence. The learned counsel has submitted that Tahir Sarwar, one of the prosecution witnesses, is an important witness whose evidence is essential in the larger interest of the prosecution but the trial Court as well as the Shariat Court failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the case.
4. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents, Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan, vehemently urged that the orders recorded by the trial Court as well as the Shariat Court closing the evidence of Tahir Sarwar, one of the prosecution witnesses, suffered from no illegality or infirmity as the prosecution was provided numerous opportunities to produce the aforesaid witness .For getting his statement recorded in the Court but without any justifiable reason it failed to produce the said witness.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it may be stated that Tahir Sarwar, the prosecution witness had continuously been summoned by the trial Court since 1990. Almost 86 opportunities were given to the P prosecution to produce the said witness but it failed to carry out the orders of the trial Court. We have also noticed that the said witness is one of the accused in a murder case titled The State v. Shahid Hakeem and others. The said witness has been reported to be an absconder in the murder case and has been declared as fugitive offender from law by the District Criminal Court. The order of the District Criminal Court declaring the said witness as fugitive offender from law has also been placed on record in the instant case. Therefore, we agree with the view expressed by the Shariat Court that in the circumstances of the case it appears impossible for the prosecution to produce the said witness before the trial Court for the purpose of recording his evidence. In our view the learned trial Court has already given undue latitude to the prosecution and had been summoning the said witness for the last about 10 years which is itself is a mockery of the dispensation of justice and earlier disposal of cases.
6, In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed Thus, the orders recorded by the Shariat Court as well as the trial Court are upheld.