CRIMINAL REVISION NO.90/2010.

ABDUL RAZZAQ VS. THE STATE

02.12.2010. Mr. Zahid ur Rehman Tayib, Advocate.

Mr. Muhammad Umair Mohsin, Advocate for
respondents.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, DPG.

The petitioner who is complainant of case FIR

No.361/2008 registered with police station Abbas
Nagar, Bahawalpur has filed this criminal revision
against the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, whereby his application
under section 540 read with section 94 Cr.P.C. for
producing certain documents during trial, was
dismissed.
2. It is argued by learned counsel that the
documents fully detailed in the application filed
under section 540 read with section 94 Cr.P.C. were
very essential documents and necessary for just
decision of the case, but the learned trial court did
not properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and
dismissed his application on the grounds which were
not available, because there was no question of filling
up the lacunae or flaws of the ocular account, as only
examination in chief of three eye witnesses had been
recorded, they were yet to be cross-examined and
remaining evidence was also to be produced by both
the sides. The learned counsel therefore, argued that
by producing of those documents no prejudice was
likely to be caused to the parties, as such, the
impugned order may be set-aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused/ respondents argued that the petitioner had
not disclosed as to what was the necessity for brining
on records the proposed documents and the sole
intention of the petitioner was to fill up the gaps.
Further argued that these documents even otherwise,
could not be produced because these were neither
given to the I.O nor copies thereof were delivered to
the accused/ respondents, as such, there is no
illegality in the impugned order.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Search of truth is the primary duty imposed
upon the court for administration of justice and court
cannot base its opinion merely on technicalities. The
documents required to be exhibited are prima facie
important to establish as to which of the party was in
possession of the land where occurrence took place at
the relevant time and the learned trial court was not
justified in observing that complainant wanted to fill
up the lacunae, especially when there is no embargo
with regard to limitation and such jurisdiction could
be exercised at any stage. Here in this case only
examination in chief of three witnesses had been
recorded, they were yet to be cross-examined and the
entire evidence was yet to be produced, hence, it
could not be said that these documents will prejudice
the rights of the accused/ respondents. Section 540
Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the court in this behalf
and this jurisdiction should be exercise liberally as
main ingredient under section 540 Cr.P.C. is that
whether the piece of evidence which any party
wanted to produce before the court, is essential to the
 just decision of the case or not. The court cannot sit
as an idle spectator; rather this section enables the
court to examine any evidence at any stage of the
proceedings which is deemed by the court essential
for just decision of the case. As observed above, these
documents were on the face of it essential for just
decision of the case, therefore, the learned trial court
passed the impugned order without applying the law
in its true perspective. As such, this petition is
allowed, the impugned order dated 5.5.2010 is set-
aside, as a necessary consequence the application of
the petitioner filed under section 540 read with
section 94 Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to have been
accepted, and the petitioner is allowed to produce the
documents, detailed in the said application, during
trial in accordance with law.

(MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN)

JUDGE.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
Javed*