Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RASHID AHMAD VS Respondent: IBRAHIM and another
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Rashid Aziz Khan Title: RASHID AHMAD vs IBRAHIM and another Case No.: Criminal Revision No,377 of 1995 Date of Judgment:1995-11-29 Reported As: 1996 P Cr. L J 1439 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' Facts leading to filing of this revision are that the petitioner had got a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. Against the respondent on 28-1-1995. After due investigation challan was submitted and trial commenced. Eye-witness Khair Din was produced as P.W.6, who gave his address as Shamkot, whereas in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had stated that he was resident of village Dhola. The witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination consisting of three typed pages. His evidence was concluded on 25-6-1995. Thereafter on 8-8-1995 an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Was moved praying for summoning of said Khair Din for purposes of records-examination on the ground that the witness could not be confronted with his earlier statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 12-9-1995 accepted the application. In the present revision said order has been assailed. 2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that section 540, Cr.P.C. Cannot be invoked for filling in the lacunas. Argued that if a witness is thoroughly subjected to cross- examination, thereafter he cannot be summoned simply on the ground that some questions could not be asked. Argued that if this principle was accepted. Then the statement of any witness can never be concluded. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. 3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner because the witness appeared on oath and was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Thereafter with an interval of 2 months present application was given for summoning the witness. It cannot be allowed. Nothing new was introduced in the statement which required clarification or cross-examination. If this practice is adopted then a witness can be
---
## Page 2
summoned at any time to favor one party or the other. I, after going through the order impugned, am of the view that it is not in accordance with the established principles of Criminal Jurisprudence and the judgments of the superior Courts on the point. The order impugned is set aside.