1. ' Through the instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged order dated 19-12-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kasur whereby he dismissed his petition for summoning of Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain as prosecution witnesses in case got registered by him vide F.I.R. No,16 of 2001 on 15-1-2001, under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Raiwind Sadar, Kasur for murder of his son Faiz Ali.
2. ' During the investigation Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No,2 was found guilty and was challaned to Lace the trial on 20-7-2001. Charge against him was framed and the prosecution evidence was summoned. Meanwhile the petitioner moved S.S.P. Kasur for reinvestigation and recording of statements of aforesaid two witnesses. His grievance was not redressed on which he filed Writ Petition No,20407 of 2001 to seek direction for re-investigation of the case on the ground that two persons namely, Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have consented to depose against the accused as prosecution witnesses and their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Be directed to be recorded. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15-11-2001 with the observation that as the challan has already been submitted and the trial has commenced and the persons claiming to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence may appear before the trial Court for appropriate orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint on 2-3-2002 which, after recording of preliminary statement of Muhammad Yaqoob (complainant) was sent to Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and report under section 302, Cr.P.C. The report was submitted by the Judicial Magistrate concluding that the complainant had miserably failed to establish, prima facie, case. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments proceeded to dismiss the private complaint vide order dated 2-8-2002. It is to be noticed that during the inquiry of the complaint statements of both the eye-witnesses Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain were recorded but the Judicial Magistrate submitted report adverse to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge observed in his order regarding the statements of Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain as under:-- "Even otherwise, if, at all, the two witnesses namely Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain are to be recorded, the complainant is at liberty to move to the Court for summoning the said witnesses and can bring on record the case of the complainant as the same was observed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Bashir A. Mujahid, while disposing of the writ petition moved by the complainant, vide order dated 15-11-2001."
3. ' The petitioner had not further challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge, Kasur but he filed petition under section 265-F(2), Cr.P.C. For summoning of those witnesses as prosecution witnesses, but the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order on the ground that those witnesses were not named in the F.I.R. Or in his supplementary statements got recorded by the complainant twice with the police.
4. ' In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on 1980 PCr.LJ 1119 title Abdur Rashid v. The State and 2001 YLR 746 titled Mst. Shama Akram v. Muhammad Latif alias Teefa alias Liaqat and 7 others, has argued that the trial Court has to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and it has ' to ascertain from the public prosecutor the names of all persons who are likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and are able to give evidence for the prosecution, therefore, the statements of these two witnesses were essential to ascertain the true facts of the case and to reach at just decision of the case they should have been summoned.
5. ' Conversely, the petition has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No,2 and learned Law Officer. They have argued that the evidence of as many as five witnesses has already been recorded and the application has been moved merely to delay the trial.
6. ' I have herd the learned counsel for the parties and examined the relevant provisions of law.
7. ' There is no cavil to the proposition of the law that under section 265-F(ii), Cr.P.C. Court has to elicit from Public Prosecutor names of all such persons likely to be acquainted with facts of prosecution case as submitted by police challan and under section 540, Cr.P.C. The Court has power to summon at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned or to recall and re-examine any person already examined if evidence of such persons appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. In the instant case, although it is correct that the complainant had not named those persons as eyewitnesses of the occurrence, but filing of writ petition in this Court and private complaint in the Sessions Court shows that for the complaint those witnesses are material as according to him they are eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they could not appear during the investigation due to political influence. The trial is still in progress. The complainant appeared himself as a prosecution witnesses (P.W.4) and stated that he was intormed by these two witnesses having seen respondent 2 committing murder of his son. The trial Court has dismissed his petition B merely on the ground that he had failed to name those witnesses in the F.I.R. Or in the supplementary statement but it failed to notice that the complainant, prior to commencement of the trial, was trying his best to get these two witnesses examined as P.Ws. Even in the dismissal order whereby the complaint was dismissed it has been observed that the complainant could move the learned trial Court for summoning of these witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses is to be evaluated by the trial Court under the law to arrive at just decision of the case and by mere examining those witnesses no prejudice would be caused to the accused. He will have full opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and for safe administration of justice, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order and the trial Court is directed to summon and or provide one opportunity to the complainant to produce those two persons namely, Muhammad Afzal and Faqir Hussain and record their statements as prosecution witnesses to be considered in accordance with law Revision .