Summoning of witnesses and documents---Scope---Petitioners contended that weapon of offence i.e. 9 MM pistol was used in both the cases along with other criminal cases by ..............

 2021 PCrLJ 417 ISLAMABAD
GHULAM MUSTAFA vs State

Summoning of witnesses and documents---Scope---Petitioners contended that weapon of offence i.e. 9 MM pistol was used in both the cases along with other criminal cases by same set of accused who were accused in those cases, however, during the course of trial prosecution intended to connect the accused with particular piece of evidence i.e. the manufacturer of said weapon of offence which was machine gun factory, as to whether the weapon of offence was purchased by respondent and the same was registered with the licensing authority, therefore, said witnesses were necessary for the just decision of the case---Application for summoning of said witnesses as court witnesses along with relevant record of another case FIR was dismissed---Validity---No concept existed under the law to use the deposition of one set of witnesses of a criminal case in another criminal case without calling those witnesses nor there was any concept under the law that certified copies of statement of witnesses could be placed on record of any other case---If the evidence of one witness was adopted from one case into the file of other case without appearance of witness, without examination and cross examination of the witness, it would amount to serious defect and may cause prejudice to the case of defence, and also amounted to illegality---Trial, in such circumstances, would stand vitiated and even no protection under S. 537, Cr.P.C. could be extended to a trial, where such methods were adopted by the Trial Courts, when accused was facing more than one trial---Respondents contended that the petitioners had not objected to the submission of evidence recorded in one case in the other cases against the accused person and as such they were not to be permitted to object at that stage---Consent if given by the parties in any case in that manner was also illegal and was alien to the procedure provided under the law, hence, the statement of one case could not be used in another case without calling a witness in the court and same could not be given protection on the ground that it was against the principles of natural justice---Court, in such circumstances, truly believed that application under S. 540, Cr.P.C., for summoning of material witnesses was required to be allowed, otherwise prosecution might suffer irreparable loss and they would be deprived of opportunity to prove their case---In the present case, all the witnesses who had been referred by the petitioners in their applications were likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution; in that backdrop, the provision of S. 265-F, Cr.P.C., though provisional in nature, but it manifested a positive intent in advancing the cause of justice, especially when the said material evidence was left out by negligence of Investigating Officer or of the prosecutor---Impugned orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court being contrary to settled principles of law were set aside and both the criminal revisions were allowed in the interest of justice.