| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2183 2026 SLD 2183 = 2026 PCRLJ 472 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2025, decided on 25th June, 2025.
Presented By: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J
The State v. Fazal Muhammad PLD 1960 SC 387 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 rel. Muhammad Waqas Amjad for Applicant/Petitioner. Khawaja Qaiser Butt for
Respondent No. 2. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq-ur-Rehman Khan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2025, decided on 25th June, 2025.
Presented By: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J
The State v. Fazal Muhammad PLD 1960 SC 387 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 rel. Muhammad Waqas Amjad for Applicant/Petitioner. Khawaja Qaiser Butt for
Respondent No. 2. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq-ur-Rehman Khan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.
MAJID JAVED alias Javed Ali---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 540
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 24
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 540---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 24---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Summoning of witness---Scope---Application filed by the petitioner for summoning of Control Room Wireless Operator/Moharrar as Court witness was dismissed---Validity---Petitioner/accused had sought the summoning of Control Room Wireless Operator/Moharrar along with record/register regarding Rapts dated 18.05.2023 as Court Witness maintaining that on the said date, three calls were made at Rescue 15 with the report that one person inflicted injuries to another person and according to the 3rd call an information was laid to the effect that one person gave information that somebody made fire shot at his cousin, who passed away at hospital---Said witness and record was essential for a just decision of the case---Petitioner/accused claimed that according to calls made to Rescue 15 on 18.05.2023, no person was mentioned as accused, as such its production was necessary for the just decision of the case---Said documents/Rapts were relevant under Art.24 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Summoning, production and use of the said documents may make the the existence or non-existence of a fact highly probable or improbable, as such were essential for the just decision of the case--- Just" means right, fair and well founded---Moreover, it is always duty of the Court to make every effort that no aspect of the case should be left unattended, therefore, the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 17.05.2025, refusing to summon the said witness along with record, committed material irregularity---Trial Court failed to exercise discretion judiciously and did not record any substantial reason for rejecting the application, despite the witness being relevant and material---Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances. …