Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 577 of 1981, decided on 30th January, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 439 a 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/147/148‑‑F.I.R. lodged against six persons‑‑Magistrate cancelling case against five accused who were found innocent by police‑‑Case sent up for trial to Sessions Court‑‑Complainant in his statement before Sessions Judge involving five accused alongwith accused challaned by police‑‑Sessions Judge summoning them for facing trial‑‑Order challenged before High Court through revision petition‑‑Accused not pursuing revision petition‑‑Held, Sessions Judge after finding a prima facie case against five accused (petitioners) was quite competent to issue process against them‑‑Revision petition found to be without merit and dismissed.

Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J 1078 ref.

Nemo for Petitioner. Khan Talib Hussain Khan Baloch for Mst. Bakhai.

The facts of the revision petition are as under:‑

Sultan made statement before Ch. Muhammad Bashir S.H.O., Police Station Chiniot, on 11‑11‑1980, at 6‑00 a.m., in Chak No.133 G.B. This statement was sent at Police Station Chiniot and case under sections 147,148 and 302 P.P.C. was registered. The complainant had involved six persons, namely Sarfraz, Muhammad Yusuf, Muhammad Gulzar, Khuda Yar, Mst. Sughran and Mst. Phaphi. After investigation, the police challaned only Sarfraz. The Investigating Officer submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Except Sarfraz, he found the other five accused named above as innocent. The Magistrate vide order, dated 2‑2‑1981 cancelled the case against Yusuf, Muhammad Gulzar, A Khuda Yar, Mst. Sughran and Mst. Phaphi. The learned Magistrate sent the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge partly recorded the statement of Sultan. During the recording of the evidence a prayer was made by the A.P.P. for summoning Yusuf. Khuda Yar, Gulzar, Mst. Phaphi and Mst. Sughran for facing the trial as according to him, the witness had implicated them. The learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned. order, on 19‑9‑1981 and he summoned the aforesaid five accused. The petitioners were aggrieved of the said order and they filed the revision petition.

2. Nobody came forward to pursue this petition on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for Sultan respondent submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was competent to summon the petitioners after coming to a finding that a prima facie case against them had been made out and he was not required to send the case back to the Magistrate for this purpose. He further submitted that the entire case had been sent to the Sessions Judge who was to take cognizance of the offence and not the accused alone and it was within his competence to summon those accused also who had not been challaned. He placed reliance on case titled Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J 1078.

3. I have perused the statement of Sultan (P.W.1) recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, on 19‑9‑1981. He involved Sarfraz accused as well as the other five accused whose case had beer, cancelled earlier. According to the learned Sessions Judge a prima facie case had been made out against the five petitioners. After coming to that conclusion he was quite competent to issue process against the five petitioners. The authority stated by the learned counsel for Sultan respondent was applicable to the facts of this case. The revision petition is without any merits and it is dismissed.

4. The trial of the Case has already been considerably delayed due to this revision petition. The file shall be sent back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned with direction that he shall dispose of the case within three months of the receipt of the file.

H.A.K. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.