Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 94,540,265-C,265-F

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 161, 129(g)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302, 324, 337-F(v), 201, 34

Summary  The Supreme Court upheld the trial’s continuation after two persons (Muhammad Imran and Yasmeen Bibi) were summoned under Section 540 Cr.P.C. during trial, rejecting the plea for a de novo trial. It emphasized that while criminal trials are adversarial, the court has limited inquisitorial powers under Sections 94 and 540 Cr.P.C. and Article 161 QSO to secure a just decision. Absence from the witness calendar or lack of a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement is not an absolute bar to examination under Section 540, but the accused must be protected against unfair surprise through disclosure of existing material, reasonable preparation time, and effective cross-examination. A de novo trial is an exceptional remedy tied to demonstrated prejudice, not an automatic consequence of mid-trial summoning. Key points Criminal trials in Pakistan are primarily adversarial, but courts retain statutory truth-seeking powers under Sections 94 and 540 Cr.P.C. and Article 161 QSO. Section 540 has two limbs: the first is discretionary (“may”), the second is mandatory (“shall”) when evidence is “essential to the just decision of the case.” Omission from the witness calendar or non-recording of a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement does not per se prohibit examination under Section 540. Section 265-C Cr.P.C. requires supply of existing disclosable material before trial; it does not compel creation or supply of a non-existent Section 161 statement. Fair trial under Article 10-A is satisfied by preventing ambush: disclose available material, allow preparation, and ensure full cross-examination of newly summoned witnesses. The proper remedy depends on actual prejudice; a de novo trial is exceptional and not automatic upon mid-trial summoning under Section 540. In this case, material relating to the new witnesses was supplied on 26.03.2026, and no irremediable prejudice was shown; hence leave to appeal was refused and the trial will proceed. Laws and sections Law / Instrument Section / Article Core role in this judgment Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) Section 94 Empowers court to compel production of documents/things necessary or…