' Anwar Ali Bajwa-petitioner is facing trial in case F.I.R. No,53 of 2002 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Rahim Yar Khan, for offences under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of Muhammad Arshad- complainant on 11-11-2002 as P.W. I. Much later, on 6-3-2003 the petitioner moved an application seeking re-examination of Muhammad Arshad-P.W. The same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14-5-2003. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing No,103 of 2003 on 14-7-2003, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1-9-2003. Hence this fresh revision.
2. As the earlier revision petition filed by the petitioner was not decided on merits, I have entertained this revision petition and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
3. The learned counsel has argued that when the statement of Muhammad Arshad-P.W. Was recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner was not in possession of certain documents including certain F.I.Rs, annexures D-1 to D-6 (sic) of this petition, therefore, he could not confront the complainant with those documents. He has further argued that P.W., Muhammad Arshad had moved an application before the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, on 17-12-2002, wherein certain allegations had been levelled against Mukhtar Ahmad Patafi, who was then posted as D.S.P.
In C.I.D. Department and the petitioner wanted to confront Muhammad Arshad-P.W. With the said application.
4. Perusal of the application annexure-A of this petition, whereby the reexamination of Muhammad Arshad-P.W. Was sought, reveals that neither the documents referred to by the petitioner have been mentioned nor the petitioner has stated in the application that he wanted to confront the complainant with certain documents. The F.I.Rs, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the public documents and the petitioner can always place certified copies of the same on the record of the case, if he so intends. As far as annexure-H, which is photocopy of the application submitted by Muhammad Arshad-P.W. To the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption is concerned that has no relevancy whatsoever with this case, as it is an application against the police official. It is evident from the order and has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Muhammad Arshad-P.W. Was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was held in the case of Mukhtar Ali and 3 others v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 372 that "the witnesses in the case in hand were cross-examined by the learned counsel previously engaged by the applicants/accused and merely because another counsel is engaged by the applicants/ accused would not be a good ground for recalling of the witnesses". Perusal of annexure-C and C/2 reveals that the petitioner has succeeded in winning over P.W.-Muhammad Arshad, who has sworn affidavit in his favour on 10-3-2003, four months after his statement was recorded by the trial Court and it is for that reason that the petitioner is insistent upon reexamination of the P.W. Such practice cannot be allowed. In this regard I would like to refer the case of Saleem Ahmad Naseer v.
The State and others 1985 PCr.LJ 1078, wherein it was held that "the power under section 540, Cr.P.C.
Cannot be exercised for allowing volte faces. If this is allowed to be done, it will amount to opening flood gates where witnesses after making full statements might start coming up with one or the other excused for their re-examination on the same aspect to depose differently. Such a situation will naturally result in diminishing the sanctity of trials and laying foundations for creating anomalies by allowing the witnesses to take different stands on the same matters by appearing first as a witness of a party and then appearing as a Court Witness".
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal or jurisdictional infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.
6. The upshot of the whole discussion is that I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months, if possible, after receipt of this order. A copy of this order would be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith.
Revision .