' Through this petition under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. The petiitoner has challenged the order dated 7-7-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, by which his application for summoning three police officials as C.Ws. Has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his other relatives are facing trial in case F.I.R. No,205 of 1998 registered on 20-3-1998 under sections 302/ 324/148/149/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghazi Abad, District Sahiwal. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence an application has been moved by the petitioner for summoning of Muhammad Zamir. Khan, D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Chichawatni, Abdus Samad Shah, D.S.P. Crime Branch, Lahore and Muhammad Younas, S.-I. As C.Ws. Who during the investigation of the case had declared the petitioner and his co-accused as innocent. This application has been turned down on the ground that these witnesses were not cited in the calander of witnesses and the opinion of the police officials is also not binding on the Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above-said three police officials had conducted the investigation and the factum of declaring innocent the petitioner and his co- accused as innocent cannot come on the record without the recording of the statements of these witnesses as C. Ws. And they cannot be summoned as D.Ws. As they have conducted the investigation of the case. Relies upon Bashir Ahmad v. The State 1988 MLD page 2435 to contend that as all the three police officials have not prepared any document which has to be exhibited and has only formed an opinion about the innocence of the petitioner according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order. It is settled law that the opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts and it alone cannot be held sufficient for the conviction or acquittal of the accused unless is supported by some independent and tangible evidence as it has not got evidentiary value. I am not in agreement. With respect. With the case-law cited by the teamed counsel for the Petitioner it omits to consider about the evidentiary value of the police opinion and inadmissibility of the same in evidence. Furthermore, Manzoor Ahmad, S.-I. Who had investigated the case has already been examined as P.W.4 'and the petitioner/ accused was at liberty to question him about the fate of the investigation conducted C by other police officials. Even otherwise, the accused will be afforded opportunity of defence evidence and they can produce the same in support of their innocence. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional defect inIC the impugned order which is maintained.
5. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.