' Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, the petitioner has brought the instant petition calling in question the order, dated 24-3-2003 recorded by Mr. Abdul Sattar Asghar the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, District Rajanpur whereby he has turned down his application for de-sealing of the parcel containing heroin and sending the same to Office of Chemical Examiner for analysis and report and the order, dated 16-4-2003 whereby he dismissed his application for permitting him to make statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in the case F.I.R. No,195, dated 23-4-2000, initially registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition .(Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 with Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur.
The allegation against him as contained therein is that on 23-4-2000 at 2-05 p.m. He was in possession of 816 grams of heroin when was apprehended by a police party. He faced trial in the same. His statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded therein on 11-3-2003. In the same he was asked to say anything about the report Exh.P.E of Chemical Examiner. He replied that the same is false one. He was also asked that if he wants to appear as his own witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But he denied the same too. The case was fixed for final arguments. On 24- 3-2003, he made an application to the learned trial Court for de-sealing of the parcel of heroin and sending the same to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and his report.
3. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties in respect of the same declined it. The case again was fixed for final arguments on 31-3-2003. He moved another application there for permitting him to make statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The same too was dismissed 7 16-4-2003.
4. He feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with this petition.
5. We have heard his learned counsel, who has vehemently contended that he right from the very beginning had been asserting that the substances allegedly recovered from him is not heroin and so it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have sent another sample of the same for analysis by Chemical Examiner and his report on the same but it was erroneously refused and that he at one stage though inadvertently denied to make statement on oath but he can make such statement and so he may be permitted to do as there is no bar in his way to the same.
6. We have considered his submissions very carefully and copies of the record annexed to the petition gone into.
7. As regards his first application moved on 24-3-2003 for de-sealing the parcel of heroin and sending the sample from the same to the Expert for analysis and his report, the same has rightly been refused by the learned trial Court simply because that the prosecution evidence stood concluded in his case and also his examination ,under section 342, Cr.P.C. Recorded. In the same, he not only denied to produce any evidence in his defence but also denied to depose on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He right from the commencement of the trial in the case against him till his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had not at all made such request while he could easily do so, if he genuinely had intended it. So this at very belated stage when the case was fixed for final arguments such an effort on his part seemingly an afterthought and that perhaps to prolong the conclusion of the trial. His such request/application therefore, was rightly turned down.
8. As regards his second application for permitting him to make statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The same too appears to have rightly been declined because as referred above he when was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. On 11-3-2003 has denied to do so.
He all of a sudden has changed his stance in this behalf when the case stood fixed for final arguments. It, thus, too, seemingly was to prolong the decision of the case against him.
9. The law has prescribed a procedure for doing an act and also a stage for the same. An accused cannot be allowed to do an act at his own whims, when and however, he may like it particularly when he had denied to do so at the relevant stage.
10. We may mention here that such a practice, if may be allowed to prevail, the same will set at naught the whole scheme of law particularly with reference to the procedure.
11. The learned trial Court, therefore, was justified in declining his such request too.
12. The impugned orders, therefore, are not suffering from any infirmity or impropriety.
13. We thus, find that no case for interference in revision has been made out. The petition, therefore, is without any merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
Revision .