JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

Through the medium of this order, two revision petitions, one filed by the State and the other filed by the complainant, challenging two orders passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, one dated 08.12.2020 and other dated 07.02.202020, whereby the applications of the prosecution for production of additional witnesses in terms of Section 540 of J&K Cr. P. C, have been declined.

2. Before coming to t be affiliated to Lashker-e-Toiba. The caller threatened that in case the complainant does not pay ransom money of one crore, his son would be killed. The police registered FIR No.169/he grounds urged in these two petitions, a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of these petitions is required to be noticed.

3. On 28.12.2011, complainant Javaid Ahmad Qadri lodged a missing report in respect of his son Kaleem Javaid Qadri with the police. Thereafter on 29.10.2011, he lodged another report with the police to the effect that during the previous night at about 10 PM he had received a phone call from the cell number of his missing son and the caller claimed himself to2011 for offences under Section 365, 387 RPC and started investigation of the case.

4. After conducting the investigation of the case, the police came to the conclusion that the son of the complainant was abducted by the accused as they wanted to take revenge from the abductee. It was also found that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the abductee and then make a demand of ransom money from his father. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the abductee was hidden in the house of accused Nos.4 and 5 whereafter he was done to death and his dead body was thrown into the middle of river Jhelum at Seerbagh. During the investigation of the case, on the basis of the disclosure made by the accused, the dead body of the deceased was fished out from the waters of the river by the River Police. Thus, offences under Section 364, 302, 387, 34, 120-B RPC were found established against the accused and the charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

5. Vide order dated 05.03.2012, the learned trial court passed a detailed order and framed charges against the accused for offences under Section 364, 302, 387, 34, 120-B RPC. It appears from the record of the trial court that the evidence of the prosecution has been completed and even the statements of the accused under Section 342 of J&K Cr. P. C stand recorded. The case is at the stage of defence evidence/final arguments.

6. Before recording statements of the accused under Section 342 of J&K Cr. P. C and prior to recording of statement of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution moved an application under Section 540 of the J&K Criminal Procedure Code, whereby they sought permission to produce the personnel of River Police who had fished out the dead body of the deceased from the waters of River Jhelum for recording their statements. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 07.02.2020. Thereafter prosecution, after conclusion of the prosecution evidence and before recording statement of the accused under Section 342 of Cr. P. C, moved another application under Section 540 of J&K Cr. P. C seeking permission to produce and examine the persons who have issued the data relating to call details of the accused, the deceased and other witnesses. Besides this, the prosecution also sought permission to record statement of more witness PW-27. The learned trial court vide its order dated 08.12.2020, while allowing the application to the extent of recording of statement of PW-27, disallowed the prayer regarding production of the officers who had issued the data relating to call details.

7. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the prosecution as well as by the complainant by way of two separate petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

8. It has been contended by the petitioners that the impugned orders passed by the learned tr