ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.No.S-87 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For orders on M.A.No.5969/2021 (S/A)

03. For hearing of main case.

17.01.2022

                        Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, Advocate for the applicants.

                        Mr. Allah Bux Jatoi, Advocate for legal heirs of deceased.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        It is the case of prosecution that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only committed murder of Arbab Ali but fired at complainant Hadi Bux and his witnesses with intention to commit their murder, for that a case was registered. On investigation, the applicants were found to be innocent and were let off by the police by placing their names in Column No.2 of the charge sheet; subsequently, they were joined in trial and then, widow and son of the deceased by filing an application u/s.540 Cr.PC sought for their examination as witnesses of the case; it was allowed by learned trial Court, vide order dated 01.10.2021, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by way of instant criminal revision application.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the examination of widow and son of the deceased as witnesses, after twenty years of the incident was not justified. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

                        Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel legal heirs of the deceased by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused record.

                        No doubt, the Courts have ample powers to call any person for his examination as witness in order to meet with ends of justice. In the instant matter, no application was made by the prosecution for examination of widow and son of the deceased; nor have they been called by the Court itself to be examined as Court witnesses; such application was made by the witnesses themselves. If such practice at the instance of individual is allowed to be continued, then there would be no end to the criminal litigation, therefore, impugned order could not be sustained, it is set aside. However, the learned trial Court, if deems it necessary, then call above said witnesses for their examination as Court witnesses or at the instance of the prosecution.

                        The instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly together with listed application.  

JUDGE