PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 182
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 265-F(viii)--Application of petitioner for summoning of CDRs of mobile phone numbers of deceased was premature--The main consideration that prevailed with "the trial Court while passing impugned order is that petitioner under Section 265-F(vii), Cr.P.C. was having right to get any record or witness summoned through Court after closure of prosecution evidence. [Para 3] A
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 265-F(vii), 435/439--Criminal revision--Application for summoning CDRs of mobile phone numbers of alleged abductee/deceased--A fter prosecution evidence, statement of petitioner/accused also stands recorded and he did not prefer to get subject GDRs or any concerned official of relevant department summoned in his defence meaning thereby he has not availed his right given under Section 265-F-(vii), Cr.P.C.--Counsel for petitioner concedes that petitioner has not moved any application for summoning of record under Section 265-F (vii), Cr.P.C.--High Court is of opinion that order of dismissal of subject application moved by petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by High Court being sought through this criminal revision--Petition is dismissed.
[Para 3 & 4] B & C
Mr. Tasawar Iqbal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Muhammad Waqas Jutt and Mudassar Naveed Chatta Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 11.5.2022.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 182
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J.
ASAD SARWAR BHATTI--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 24647 of 2021, decided on 11.5.2022.
Order
Through this criminal revision, petitioner accused of case F.I.R No. 200 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020, registered for offences under Sections 302/365/201, PPC at police station Naseerabad, District Lahore has assailed order dated 16.03.2021, passed by Mr. Muhammad Naeem Saleem, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby his application for summoning of CDRs of mobile phone numbers of the alleged abductee/deceased was dismissed.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Perusal of the application, moved by the petitioner on 26.01.2021 reveals that according to the investigation on 10.02.2020, investigation officer moved application to the concerned Department for provision of CDRs of the abductee’s telephone numbers which is not available on record hence, the same have been dishonestly removed by the Investigation Officer/Prosecution. The petitioner to defend himself during trial requires CDRs of cell phone Numbers 0300-9474595 and 0345-9474595.
Perusal of police report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. reveals that no such CDRs were taken into possession during the investigation of this case. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not rebut the fact advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/Respondent No. 2 to the effect that during cross-examination, the Investigation Officer has explained in clear terms that initially he proceeded to have the CDRs as primarily this case was registered as an abduction case under Section 365, PPC and at that point of time CDRs were required to locate the then abductee (deceased) but the same were not procured as subsequently it was found that abductee had been murdered. Content's of Paragraphs No. 5 & 6 of the impugned order also reveal that the application of the petitioner for the summoning of CDRs of mobile phone numbers of the deceased was premature. The main consideration that prevailed with the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order is that the petitioner under Section 265-F(vii), Cr.P.C. was having the right to get any record or witness summoned through Court after closure of the prosecution evidence. Relevant excerpt from Paragraph No. 6 reads as under:
"If the accused or any one of the-accused says that he wishes to adduce evidence, the Court shall call the accused to enter his defence and produce evidence. Section 265-F-(vii), after entering to his defence applies to the Court to issue any process for compelling attendance of any witness for examination or production of any document or anything Above mentioned provisions of Statute provide accused to adduce his defence evidence or summon any record. No doubt investigating officer did not annex said CDR record with file, but prosecution would not be compelled, to annex or summon said record. The only requirement is that if said record is essential for just decision of the case, then same be summoned but at the same time it is also settled principle of law that no witness or record should be summoned merely to fill in lacuna by prosecution or defence."
Today, during arguments, it surfaced that after the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner/accused also stands recorded and he did not prefer to get the subject CDRs or any concerned official of the relevant department summoned in his defence meaning thereby he has not availed his right given under Section 265-F-(vii), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel -for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner has not moved any application for the summoning of record under Section 265-F (vii), Cr.P.C.
4. Taking stock of the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the order of dismissal of subject application moved by the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by this Court being sought through this criminal revision. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments