The petitioners are presently facing a trial in a murder case which is being conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, District Vehari. The stage of that trial is that the entire evidence to be produced by the prosecution has already been recorded and now it is for the accused party to get their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And then to lead evidence in their defence, if any. Through the impugned order dated 13-1-2001 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala had dismissed an application submitted by the petitioners for summoning two police officers as Court-witnesses. The reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in support of the impugned order were that the application of the accused party was not pressed to the extent of one police officer and regarding the other police officer it was observed that he was neither cited in the calendar of witnesses nor he as given up by the prosecution and, thus, if the defence wished to produce the said witnesses in support of their case then it was at liberty to do so because that opportunity was still available to the defence.
2. In support of the present petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the said police officers had rendered opinions regarding correctness of the version of the accused party and, thus, it was necessary to summon them as Court-witnesses so as to arrive at a just and fair conclusion.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the documents appended with this petition it may straightaway be observed by this Court that the spirit underlying the provisions of section 540, Cr.P.C. Is that a trial Court may summon any person as a Court- witness if the statement of such a person before the trial Court is considered essential by the Court for a just and correct decision of the case.
4. It is not clear from the record appended with the present petition whether the abovementioned Police Officers had also collected evidence independently or not in support of their opinions regarding correctness of the defence version. If such witnesses were to be summoned as Court- witnesses only to depose about their opinions regarding correctness of the defence version then that would be a futile exercise as it is a settled proposition of law that an opinion of a Police Officer regarding guilt or innocence of an accused person or correctness or otherwise of a party's version is inadmissible in evidence.
5. The petitioners have an opportunity to produce those police officers as witnesses in their defence, if so desired.
6. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for passing the impugned order are not averse to the settled principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under section 540, Cr.P.C. No jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned trial Court has been pointed out in this case and, therefore, no occasion has been found by this Court for interference in the matter at this stage through the present revision petition.
This petition is, therefore, I dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./N-83/L Revision dismissed-