GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE and 2 others
This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges the order of the trial court dismissing the petitioner-complainant's application to give up two prosecution witnesses in a case registered under sections 458 and 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a complainant possesses the absolute right to give up or withhold cited prosecution witnesses without the court's permission. The Lahore High Court held that the discretion to permit the giving up of witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses rests with the court under section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than the complainant, and the trial court exercised its discretion lawfully. The court laid down the principle that a complainant cannot arbitrarily withhold prosecution witnesses, and the trial court may judiciously refuse requests to drop witnesses from the calendar.
- Does a complainant have the absolute right to give up prosecution witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses?
- Whether the discretion to allow the dropping of a prosecution witness vests in the court under section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a revisional court interfere with a trial court's judicious exercise of discretion regarding the examination of witnesses?
- Sections 435/439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Sections 458/319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-F(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this revision petition, under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. Order, dated 24-3-2003 passed by the learned trial Court has been challenged whereby application of the petitioner who is complainant in case F.I.R. No, 258, dated 18-6-2001 registered under sections 458/ 319, P.P.C. At Police Station Fazilpur for giving up two P. Ws has been dismissed. It is claimed that Mst. Sardar Mai mother of Muhammad Javaid deceased also filed a private complaint regarding the same occurrence and evidence of Allah Diwaya and Muhammad Yar has already been recorded therein as P.W.5 and P.W.6 and they supported the private complaint wherein different version was given.
Hence, their examination in the challan case will damage the case of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant has a right to give up any witness and the trial Court cannot compel for the production of each and every witness if the complainant does not want to examine them. It is further contended that the evidence of these witnesses as has already been recorded in the private complaint giving different version will not be beneficial to the case of the complainant. It is also contended that the impugned order being illegal and unlawful is liable to be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order.
Admittedly Allah Diwaya and Muhammad Yar have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witnesses. The petitioner seems to be in league with the accused as the accused have also supported the application of the petitioner, according to the impugned order. The learned trial Court has rightly exercised its power by not accepting the application for giving up of the witnesses. It is the discretion of the Court which has to be exercised judiciously regarding the recording of the statements of the witnesses. It is not the discretion of the complainant to produce or withhold any witness but as per subsection (3) of section 265-F, Cr.P.C. The discretion rests with the Court to accept or reject the request. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that these witnesses have been cited in the calendar of witnesses.
The petitioner who is only a complainant of the case but not related with the deceased and seems not to be interested in the conviction of the accused cannot be given powers to get examined or give up the witnesses. The learned trial Court has applied its mind judiciously. I do not find any illegality or improbability in the impugned order necessitating interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
4. This petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
Revision petition dismissed.