Ss.540 & 94---Power to summon material witness or
examine persons present---Production of further evidence, application for---
Applicant/complainant filed application under S.540, Cr.P.C. read
with...........
2012 Y L R 1192
.jfif)
---Ss.540 & 94---Power to summon material witness or
examine persons present---Production of further evidence, application for---
Applicant/complainant filed application under S.540, Cr.P.C. read with S.94,
Cr.P.C for production of certain documents, which application was dismissed by
the Trial Court---Complainant's contention was that said documents were very
essential and necessary for just decision of the case and Trial Court had not
properly exercised jurisdiction vested in it and dismissed the application on grounds
which were not available---Validity---Documents required to be exhibited were
prima facie important to establish as to which of the party was in possession
of the land at the relevant time, where occurrence took place and the Trial
Court was not justified in observing that complainant wanted to fill up the
lacunae or flaws of the ocular account, especially when there was (naeem)no
embargo with regard to limitation and such jurisdiction could be exercised at
any stage---Only examination-in-chief of three witnesses had been recorded, and
they were yet to be cross-examined and the entire evidence was yet to be
produced, hence, it could not be said that the documents would prejudice the
rights of the accused/respondent---Said documents were essential for just
decision of the case, therefore, Trial Court had passed its order without
applying the law in its true perspective---Impugned order was consequently set
aside with the direction to Trial Court to allow the complainant to produce
documents during trial in accordance with law---Revision petition was allowed
accordingly.
Section 540, Cr.P.C. gave wide powers to the court and main
ingredient under the section was that whether the piece of evidence, which any
party wanted to produce before the court, was essential to the just decision of
the case or not---Section 540, Cr.P.C. enabled the court to examine any
evidence at any stage of the proceedings which was deemed essential by the
court for just decision of the case.
ORDER
---The petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No.361
of 2008 registered with Police Station Abbas Nagar, Bahawalpur has filed this
revision against the order dated 5-5-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, whereby his application under section 540 read with section 94, Cr.P.C.
for producing certain documents during trial, was dismissed.
2. It is argued by learned counsel that the documents fully
detailed in the application filed under section 540 read with section 94,
Cr.P.C. were very essential documents and necessary for just decision of the
case, but the learned trial court did not properly exercise the jurisdiction
vested in it and dismissed his application on the grounds which were not
available, because there was no question of filling up the lacunae or flaws of
the ocular account, as only examination-in-chief of three eye-witnesses had
been recorded, they were yet to be cross-examined (naeem)and remaining evidence
was also to be produced by both the sides. The learned counsel therefore,
argued that by producing of these documents no prejudice was likely to be
caused to the parties, as such, the impugned order may be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused/respondents argued that the petitioner had not disclosed as to what was
the necessity for bringing on record the proposed documents and the sole
intention of the petitioner was to fill up the gaps. Further argued that these
documents even otherwise, could not be produced because these were neither
given to the I.O. nor copies thereof were delivered to the accused/respondents,
as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Search of truth is the primary duty imposed upon the
court for administration of justice and court cannot base its opinion merely on
technicalities. The documents required to be exhibited are prima facie
important to establish as to which of the party was in possession of the land
where occurrence took place at the relevant time and the learned trial court
was not justified in observing that complainant wanted to fill up the lacunae,
especially when there is no embargo with regard to limitation and such jurisdiction
could be exercised at any stage. Here in this case only examination-in-chief of
three witnesses had been recorded, they were yet to be cross-examined and the
entire evidence was yet to be produced, hence, it could not be said that these
documents will prejudice the rights of the accused/respondents. Section 540,
Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the court in this behalf and this jurisdiction
should be exercised liberally as main ingredient under section 540, Cr.P.C. is
that whether the piece of evidence which any party wanted to produce before the
court, is essential to the just decision of the case or not. The court cannot
sit as an idle spectator rather this section enables the court to examine any
evidence at any stage of the proceedings which is deemed by the court essential
for just decision of the case. As observed above, these documents were on the
face of it essential for just decision of the case, therefore, the learned
trial court passed the impugned order without applying the law in its true
perspective. As such, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated
5-5-2010 is set aside, as a necessary consequence the application of the
petitioner filed under section 540 read with section 94, Cr.P.C, shall be
deemed to have been accepted, and the petitioner is allowed to produce the
documents, detailed in the said application, during trial in accordance with
law.
.jfif)
