ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE and 3 others

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---The petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No,361 of 2008 registered with Police Station Abbas Nagar, Bahawalpur has filed this 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 these 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 bringing on record 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 exercised 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.