SAIFULLAH Versus THE STATE

1. Petition was admitted to hearing solely on the ground to consider the order of the trial Court wherein one Taj Din who had earlier appeared as P.W.7 was allowed to appear as a Court-witness. The necessity arose to pass the said order when said Taj Din P.W. made an application before the Court admitting that the signatures on the disputed documents were his. It is worthy to note that in his statement as P.W.7 he had denied his signatures on the questioned document. The learned trial Court ordered his production as a Court-witness. The petitioners who are facing the trial challenges the same.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the learned trial Court would seriously prejudice him and it would amount to filling in lacuna in prosecution's case which was not the intention of Law-Framer. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file minutely; Taj Din, P.W.7, was Tehsildar and on oath he had stated that receipt Exh.P.W.7/1 was fake and bogus. He neither wrote the same nor signed it. He was put to lengthy cross-examination wherein he stuck to his earlier statement. Subsequently when the petitioners were examined on oath he requested than the questioned receipt Exh.P.W.7/1 be sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison regarding the signatures of P.W.7. Thereafter, Taj Din P.W.7. made an application owning his signatures on Exh.P.W.7/1 and requested tha: he be allowed an opportunity to explain the same. The Court in such circumstances should never have allowed Taj Din to appear as a Court-witness. It cannot be argued that it was lapse of memory on his part. He ought to be familiar with his signatures. His appearing as a Court-witness at this belated stage would only amount to fill in the lacunas which may not be permitted. Therefore, relying upon Saleem Ahmad Naseer v. The State and another 1985 P Cr. L J 1078 and Mst. Ubaida v. Makhdoom Abrar Ahmad and 2 others 1986

3. P Cr. L J 539, petition is accepted and the order impugned is set aside. Revision is disposed of.

4. N.H.Q./S-457/L

5. Revision accepted.