' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.--- This revision petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the Shariat Court on28-8-2002 whereby a revision filed against the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad was dismissed.
2. The facts are that a case under sections 302, 341, 109, 147, 148, 149 and 337-A, Azad Penal Code was challaned before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad. The State produced prosecution evidence. The statement of Hakim Ali, prosecution witness, was recorded and the statement was subjected to cross-examination by the defence. An application to summon the aforesaid witness for further cross-examination, was moved which was rejected by the trial Court.
A revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Farid Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the witness though was cross-examined but some important questions inadvertently were left to be asked as such to meet the ends of justice, an application to summon the aforesaid witness for further cross- examination was moved but the same was illegally dismissed. A further revision before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir also. Met the same fate. The learned counsel argued that section 540 Cr.P.C. Is designed to meet the situation wherein the interest of justice it is required that the witness may be summoned.
4. Raja Ibrar Hussain, Advocate-General representing the State and Mr. Muhammad Noorullah Qureshi, counsel for the complainant, argued that the defence is prolonging the matter and therefore, is filing frivolous applications. It was argued that the Shariat Court keeping in view the conduct of the defence ordered to dispose of the case by August last. In spite of the aforesaid direction the defence has moved this application. It was forcefully argued that the defence was provided full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The application was moved after two years of the recording of the statement which indicates that there was no legal justification for moving the trial Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The case was registered on 20-5-1995 which after investigation stood challaned before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad. After taking cognizance the Court proceeded with the trial. The statement of prosecution witness Hakim Ali son of Yar Ali was recorded on 8-4-2000. An application to summon the said witness on behalf of the defence was moved on 9-3-2002 which was rejected by the trial Court on 2-8-2002. The order was challenged before the Shariat Court through a revision petition which was dismissed.
6. Under section 540, Cr.P.C. a Court may at any stage of inquiry. Trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witnesses or examine any person in attendance or to recall and reexamine any person already examined if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The provisions of law consists of two parts the first part which is discretionary and the second is mandatory if required. The section gives unrestricted power to the Court to call evidence at any stage, provided it is satisfied that it is essential for a just decision. However, the power reserved to the Court to call witness at any stage including the close of a case is intended to be used very sparingly and in emergent cases. The Court cannot use these powers to advance the cause of the prosecution or that of the defence. It follows that the discretionary powers should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice.
7. In the present case the defence took full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The case for one or the other reason was prolonged. Therefore, the Shariat Court also took notice and directed that the case be disposed of expeditiously. The defence after a period of two years of the aforesaid statement moved an application to re-examine the witness. No legal justification was shown in the application except that some questions were left to be asked. Due to the aforesaid application the trial Court could not act upon the clear directions of the Shariat Court which caused further delay.
' We are of the view that there was no lawful justification for moving the application nor there was any reasonable ground for exercising the powers under section 540, Cr.P.C. As this would amount not only to unjust with one of the parties but also cause delay in the disposal of the case. Therefore, in above circumstances of the case, we hold that the application is not only frivolous one but has also been moved to delay the matter which is not a happy practice with the lawyers who prosecute the cases in superior Courts as such the revision petition is dismissed. The application filed for amendment of the revision petition is also dismissed.