Syed MAQBOOL KHALIQ and another Versus THE STATE

The petitioner is facing trial under section 408/420/467/471/489‑F, P.P.C. vide case F.I.R. No. 118, dated 13‑6‑2003 registered at Police Station City, District Chakwal. The trial is pending before the learned Magistrate Section 30, Chakwal. Vide order, dated 27‑1‑2004, the learned Magistrate proceeded to allow the respondent No. 1, inter‑alia to produce three original cheques under section 540, Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that these cheques were sought to be produced in the course of the statement of P. W .1 and for reasons recorded, the learned Magistrate declined to permit their production. However, without any reason he has proceeded to allow production of the said documents. The learned counsel for the respondent‑complainant, on the other hand, states that these documents were delivered to the Police during the investigation and there is a constant reference to the same in the case.

I have examined the certified copies of the available record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. I find that Aziz Ahmad Hani, appeared as P. W.1 on 11‑12‑2003. In the course of his statement he sought to produce three cheques as particularized in his statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner objected. The learned Magistrate passed the following order:‑‑

5. The application filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. for production of the said cheques was accepted. The learned Magistrate has disposed of the matter in the following terms:‑‑

"The objection made by the learned counsel for the accused person over the production of original cheques on the ground that review is not applicable in Cr.P.C. is turned down on the ground that P.W.1 was not allowed to produce the cheques, during his statement in the Court whereas the proceedings of the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. are different in nature altogether. The prosecution is therefore, allowed to produce documents including cheques. "

6. Now section 540, Cr.P.C. does not at all refer to the documents. It talks of summoning or examining of persons as witnesses or to recall or re‑examine any person already examined. Now the learned Magistrate has for reasons recorded and which are found to be correct, has declined the permission to produce the said cheques. He has, therefore, proceeded to allow the production without countermanding the B said earlier order or the reasons recorded therein. To my mind, he has acted illegally. This Criminal Revision is allowed, in as much as, the impugned order of the Magistrate of permitting the respondent to produce the said cheques, is set‑aside. The order, however, in all other respects shall remain intact.

H.B.T./M‑104/L Revision allowed.