Witness not mentioned in the list of defence witnesses, the defence have no right to bring him before the Court. Remedy is by application under section 540, Cr.P.C. (PC) 47 Cr.LJ 356 Bhup Lal v. K.E. 223 IC 11= AIR 1946 PC 43.
Witness not cited in calendar  and produced as a surprise causing material prejudice to the accused. Held, defect not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 1240. Rab Nawaz.
Order summoning witnesses u/s. 540, Cr.P.C. set aside when such witnesses not mentioned in calendar of witnesses, FIR, challan or witnesses examined by police or their names mentioned by any of the witnesses having seen the incident. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Kar.) 175. Muhammad Usman etc.
Injured witnesses not produced as having been won over, held, such witnesses, not supporting their own injuries and as such they were not subjected to murderous assault. PLJ 1986 SC 540. Dost Muhammad Khan v. Fateh Khan etc.
Non-production of eye-witnesses for examination. Presumption that such witnesses if examined would not support the prosecution case, held, correct. Section 114 illus. (g) Evidence Act. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 28 Shamman etc.
When coercive measures not used to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses, the police challan case could not be decided in favour of the accused on the ground that the entire prosecution evidence had not been produced. 1998 SCMR 643, Sufi Mukhtar Ahmed.
No adverse inference can be drawn if the prosecution does not produce a particular witness. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 214 Shaukat Ali.
Failure to produce material witnesses. Nothing turns on such failure of offence brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt on evidence produced. (DB) PLD 1975 Pesh. 131 Kifayatullah etc. (SC) 1978 SCMR 136 Zar Bahadur.
Material witness not produced. Prosecution is not bound to produce every witness. Material witness if not produced without sufficient reason Court may presume that had the prosecution. (SC) 1970 SCMR 713 Muhammad Shafaqat. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 490. ILR 27 Lah. 1 (PC) Malik Khan v. King Emperor. (DB) PLJ. 1978 Cr.C. (BJ) 58 Muhammad Ali.
Nearby residents and shopkeepers not produced, as witnesses by the prosecution. Held, no adverse inference can be drawn as there is general reluctance and hesitation to depose as witnesses in criminal cases for obvious reasons. Evidence of the witnesses which stood the test of cross-examination relied upon. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 311 Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din.
Non-production of witnesses of locality does not affect the evidence of other witnesses. (DB) PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 214 Muhammad Banaras etc.
Witness from neighbourhood not produced. Persons from neighbouring houses soon attracted to the scene of occurrence. None was examined as prosecution witness or named in F.I.R. Prosecution version held doubtful. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 737 Najeebullah etc.
None from neighbourhood coming to the scene of occurrence, despite cries of the deceased. P.Ws. chance witnesses. F.I.R. lodged next day. Evidence of such P.Ws. not reliable. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 763 Ghulam Haider.
Non-production of independent witnesses who were admittedly present at the occurrence cannot be a ground for disbelieving the evidence of other witnesses. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 204. Ali Gohar etc.
No independent witness produced, is not justification for drawing adverse inference as independent witnesses are reluctant to get involved in cases. (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 74 Haji Mir Aftab.
No production of independent witnesses from the vicinity, held, due to general police apathy or cowardice. Evidence of near relatives of the deceased relied upon when no motive to falsely implicate the accused. PLJ 1977 Lah. 509 Zahoor Ahmad.
Independent witnesses present but not produced. Ocular evidence contrary to medical evidence. Accused acquitted. (SC) 1972 SCMR 572 Redi Gul v. Mian Gul. 1972 SCMR 574.
Some P.Ws. not produced, offence however brought home to the accused beyond any reasonable doubt on evidence already  produced. Held, nothing turns on failure to examine such witnesses. (SC) PLD 1973 SC 418 State v. Mushtaq Ahmed. (SC) 1978 SCMR 136 Zar Bahadur.
Disinterested witness not produced when occurrence took place in the most populous part of the town in daylight. Prosecution case resting only on the evidence of three interested-cum-hostile witnesses and their testimony irreconcilable with medical evidence. Such witnesses disbelieved. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 990 Abdul Aziz etc.
Independent witnesses not examined by the police during the investigation as the witnesses generally refrain from joining the investigation held this fact will not destroy the evidence of witnesses related to the deceased. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 237 Sharif.
Non-partisan and natural witnesses not examined by the prosecution. Held, adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 243 Mangio.
Partisan witnesses only, produced at the trial although the occurrence took place in a congested bazar. Recoveries of crime weapons doubtful. Accused acquitted. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1082 Mushtaq Ahmed etc.
Prosecution to call witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the Prosecution case is based, whether in the result the fact of their testimony is for or against the prosecution case. (PC) AIR 1936 PC 289 Stephen v. The King.
Prosecution must call witnesses named in F.I.R. Whether they support the prosecution or not. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 48 Ghulam Rasul.
Prosecution is duty-bound to produce all the evidence available in the case. Withholding of evidence would raise a presumption against the truthfulness of the prosecution case. PLD 1994 FSC 37, Wasal Khan.
Prosecution not bound to examine witnesses it considers not likely to give true evidence. (SC) 1969 SCMR 358 = 1969 P.Cr.LJ 883 Bahawal v. Crown. (SC) AIR 1945 PC 42 Adel Muhammad v. G.A. Palestine. (PC) ILR 8 Lah. 1 (PC) Malik Khan v. King Emp.
Prosecution is not bound to examine a witness whom it considers unnecessary or having been won over by the accused. 1993 SCMR 155, Zia Ullah.
Disinterested and independent witnesses not produced, although admitted to have reached on the spot. Explanation that such witnesses to avoid animosity of one party could not be produced though not altogether discountable, held, cannot be accepted in all cases as a valid excuse for prosecution's failure to produce best evidence. (SC) 1976 SCMR 528 Rahim Bakhsh v. Muhammad Iqbal etc.
No disinterested witness produced. Murder case committed in the presence of a large number of persons. People in this country reluctant to appear as witnesses. Therefore, no importance is attached to non-production of a disinterested witness. Case to depend on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and worth of their testimony. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 164 Mian Khan etc.
Failure to examine independent witnesses raises adverse inference against the prosecution. NLR 1984 Cr. 595 Manzoor etc.
No independent witnesses produced. Incident taking place in busy cattle fair in presence of hundreds of people, yet no independent witness produced. Circumstances very suspicious. High Court rightly acquitted the accused. (SC) 1973 SCMR 12 Karam Dad v. Abdullah. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 649 Siraj etc.
No notice or proposed evidence to accused u/ss. 265-C and 265-F, Cr.P.C. the court should refuse to summon any witness for evidence of which accused had no notice and the production of which shall cause the accused to be taken by surprise. NLR 1982 Cr. 217. Sultan Khan.
Inquest report shall be signed by witnesses assisting the investigating officer and who concur therein, as well as by the investigating officer. Police rule 25.35 (3). Also see PLD 1977 Lah. 136 Muhammad Zamurrad etc.
P.Ws. given up without instructions from complainant. P.Ws. giving affidavits that they supported the prosecution. Acquittal set aside, cases remanded for retrial. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 67 Rana Irshad Ahmed Khan.
Given up prosecution witnesses  to  be examined as Court Witnesses u/s. 540, Cr.P.C. and defence not to be made to examine them as P.Ws. PLJ 1979 Cr.C. (Lah.) 372 Mahboob Khan.
Giving up witnesses by public prosecutor, trial judge has inherent power to ensure whether given up witnesses had really been won over. Retrial order not interfered with. PLJ 1981 SC 457 Abdul Rehman etc.
Given up as unnecessary. A witness given up as unnecessary can be resummoned for evidence before the accused is examined. PLD 1979 Lah. 740 Barkat Ali.
Court cannot close prosecution case for non-attendance of P.Ws. without taking coercive measures u/ss. 90 to 93, Cr.P.C. NLR 1989 Cr. 631. State v. Nawab Khan.
Duty of trial Court to secure attendance of prosecution witnesses coercive measures and not to finalise the case in favour of the accused because of non-production of witnesses. PLJ 1998 SC 817, Sufi Mukhtar Ahmed.
Non-production of prosecution witnesses who are Govt. servants and closing of prosecution case. Because prosecution was unable to produce P.Ws. who are Govt. servants closing of prosecution evidence is not justified. Held, in challan cases it is for trial court to procure attendance of witnesses who are Govt. servants. Failure of the Magistrate to procure attendance of I.O. and Patwari is either his incompetence or ignorance of law. Sessions Judges and D.Ms to take corrective measures. NLR 1991 Cr. 65. Akhtar Ali. v. Addl. Sessions Judge etc.
Recallinng a witness for cross-examination on application made u/s. 540 Cr. P.C. held, cross-examination is not an empty formality it is essential to ascertain truth. If defence counsel was not present for cross-examination the accused could not be penalised. High Court ordered all PWs to be recalled for cross-examination PLJ 1992 Cr. C.(Kar.) 146, Altaf Hussain Shamim-PLD 1992 Kar. 91.
Calling of witness u/s. 540 Cr.P.C.: After hearing Criminal Appeal Supreme Court reserved the judgment and called the investigating officer and examined him in the absence of the convicts or their counsel and then wrote the judgment and announced it. Held, the witnesses are to be summoned and examined in the open Court  in the presence of the parties and with concurrence of the members of the Bench. The matter was ordered to be heard in review petition. PLD 1993 S.C. 55, Hakim Khan etc.