Muhammad Maqsood Khan Versus Hafiz Akash

Order

Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan, J .--- The captioned revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sudhnoti, dated 23.02.2026 whereby an application filed under Sections 540 and 94, Cr.C.P. by the petitioner for summoning Principal The First Step School and College Baloch along-with record pertaining to the age of victims Saad Sajjad and Muntazir Hussain was rejected.

2.Precise facts of the case are that on written report of complainant-petitioner a case illat No.114/25 in offences under Sections 377A APC on was registered at Police Station Baloch 07.08.2025 against the accused-respondent No.1. The police started investigation and during investigation Sections 377A(1) APC and 15 (2) AA were added. The police after investigation submitted a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court on 03.11.2025. The trial of case was near to completion while an application for summoning of Principal of First Step School and College Baloch along-with the record pertaining to ascertaining the age of minors victims (Saad Sajjad and Muntazar Hussain) on 09.02.2026, which after hearing was turned down vide impugned order dated 23.02.2026, hence, this petition.

3.Heard. Written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner have been perused. According to Section 540 of Cr.P.C., the Court of competent jurisdiction at any stage of trial and proceeding may summon any person as a witness, if his evidence appears to be essential for justice decision of the case. For proper appreciation of the matter, Section 540 of Cr.P.C. is usefully reproduced as under:-

Likewise, Article 161 of Qaunan-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is very much clear, hence, is usefully reproduced as under:-

4.In the light of Section 540, Cr.P.C. referred above, the Court of competent jurisdiction, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code summon any person as a witness, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. Article 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has armed the Judge with the most exhaustive powers possible for the purpose of getting truth, Courts of law are not to sit entirely unconcerned during the proceedings, like an unthinking Statute. Administration of justice is primarily and essentially an obligation cast upon the Courts of law constituted for the purpose. Any piece of evidence, which is essential for the just decision of the case has to be brought on record irrespective of the fact that either it favours one party or goes against the other. Any delay in filing an application for calling/re-calling of witness or bringing any piece of evidence on record is immaterial. Filling lacuna in case is immaterial, if such piece of evidence is otherwise, necessary for securing ends of justice. The powers conferred under Section 540 and Article 161 of Qunan-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 do not only empower the Courts to adopt such a course of action but in fact even oblige them to do the same.

5.The proposition is as to whether an application submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court under Section 540 of Cr.P.C. for summoning Principal First Step School and College along-with the requisite record pertaining to age of victims Saad Sajjad and Muntazir Hussain was essential for just decision of the case or not? It depicts from record that during investigation process P.W-2 Saad Sajid appeared before I.O. and got recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he deposed his age is 12 years while P.W-3 Muntazir Hussain in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before I.O. deposed his age as 09 years. Record further reveals on Saad Sajid (P.W-2) appeared before the learned trial Court and got recorded his statement 02.04.2026 wherein he deposed that his age is 12 years. Muntazir Hussain (P.W-3) in his deposition recorded before the trial Court on 09.02.2026 deposed that his age is 13 years. In view of Child Registration NADRA Certificates issued by appended along-with police file, date of birth of victims Saad Sajid and Muhammad Muntazir is 11.07.2011 and 28.12.2013 respectively. Police file further reflects that although Child Registration Certificates appended with it yet the same have not been made as part of report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before trial Court.

6.As the offence under Section 377A(1), APC has been attributed to the accused-respondent No.1 and he is facing trial in above offence while the punishment provided for committing unnatural offence is death, or imprisonment for life and fine which may extend to five million rupees but shall not be less than two million rupees subject to commission of such offence with the minor who has not attained the age of eighteen years, hence, the learned trial Court was not justified to reject the application for summoning Principal First Step School and College Baloch as witness, hence, the Principal is a pivotal witness to be summoned under the relevant provisions of law for just decision of the case and the learned trial Court misconstrued the matter and reached at wrong conclusion while rejecting the application, as such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while handing down the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 clearly call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7.The upshot of the foregoing reasons is that the instant revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 is hereby set-aside while the application dated 09.02.2026 filed under Section 540, Cr.P.C. for summoning the Principal First Step School and College Baloch along with requisite record pertaining to (date of birth) age of the victims as witness is accepted with the direction to the trial Court to summon the aforesaid witness. Both the prosecution and defence be allowed to cross-examine on the statement of the said witness in accordance with law. The learned trial Court is also directed to conclude the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance.

JK/12/AJK H.C Revision allowed.