Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 330 of 1986, decided on 5th November, 1986.

---S. 439--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34 & 109--Complaint case- Case registered with police against five accused--Police proceeding only against one--Complainant losing confidence, filed complaint in Court- Sessions Judge finding prima facie case, issued warrants against accused--Request for expediting and proceeding with the case out of turn, granted by High Court.

Q . M . Saleem for Petitioners.

Farooq Bedar Asstt. A.-G. for the State.

Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for the Complainant.

Mumtaz Ullah Khan, Saif Ullah Khan, Imtiaz Ullah Khan, Aziz Ullah Khan and Sana Ullah Khan real brothers, Pathan by caste, residents of Mauza Bitian, Police-Station Sadar, Tehsil and District Mianwali have filed this petition under section 439 Cr.P.C., against the order of Sessions Judge, Bhakkar dated 22-6-1986. The prayer in this revision is to set aside the impugned order dated above and proceedings in complaint titled Muhammad Ashraf v. Mumtaz Ullah and others be quashed.

The background of this case is that. Muhammad Ashraf filed a complaint under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. against the petitioners. The father of the petitioners, got a case registered against Muhammad Ashraf, his brother Fateh Khan and father Khan Muhammad Khan. The aforesaid persons were acquitted in the year 1985. The petitioners felt aggrieved.

A criminal case was registered against Fateh Khan under section 365/110/171, P.P.C. This was pending in the Court of a Magistrate at Bhakkar. There were other accused also with him. But it was Fateh Khan alone who used to appear on the date of hearing.

On 3-1-1986, Muhammad Ashraf, Dost Muhammad and Rab Nawaz had come to Bhakkar. On the following day they went to the house of Fateh Khan. They proceeded to the District Court to appear in the Court concerned. After appearing in Court they were coming back. Fateh Khan was ahead of them. When they reached Parachawala Petrol Pump, Jhang Road, at about 10.30, Mumtaz Ullah, Saif Ullah and Imtiaz Ullah all armed with 12 bore pistols appeared. Saif Ullah raised Lalkara and asked Fateh Khan as to why he had killed their father and that they had now come. Thereafter Saif Ullah fired a pistol shot. Fateh Khan was hit in the chest near the left shoulder. Then Mumtaz Ullah fired with his pistol which hit Fateh Khan on face and neck. He fell down and while he was lying down on the ground Imtiaz Ullah Khan fired which hit Fateh Khan on his back. This was followed again by Saif Ullah. This time the shot hit the right flank of Fateh Khan.

The complainant party was empty handed. None came close to the accused party. The accused ran away after the incident.

Fateh Khan was brought to the Civil Hospital, where he died. The complainant proceeded to the Police Station to lodge report. The Police met him at Katchery Bazar where his statement was recorded on the basis of which formal F . I . R . was registered.

As the investigation proceeded the complainant lost confidence in the local police because Muhammad Khan Muharrir Head Constable of Darya Khan and Abdullah another Constable of Mankera were relatives of the accused party. As a result of which action was taken only against Mumtaz Ullah. The other accused were not proceeded against.

This led to the filing of the complaint. Additional Sessions Judge after recording the necessary evidence forwarded the complaint to Ilaqal Magistrate. He sent it to Sessions Judge who entrusted the same to Additional Sessions Judge. But as the Additional Sessions Judge expressed his view that he could not do justice in this case the Sessions Judge withdrew the case and tried himself.

In the police challan Mumtaz Ullah, the solitary accused applied for bail. The Additional Sessions Judge who took cognizance of the bail matter thought it proper to refer the matter to the Sessions Judge.

The Sessions Judge after going through the evidence of Muhammad Ashraf complainant and his witnesses found a prima facie case against the accused in the complaint under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. and by his order, dated 22-6-1986 issued the warrants. This is the order which the petitioners now seek to be set aside and the proceedings to be quashed. By my order dated 1-7-1986 I called for the report from the Sessions Judge and stayed the proceedings in the meanwhile. The report had been submitted. The revision is still at a motion stage.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners at some length and have gone through the report submitted by the Sessions Judge.

The only submissions made by the counsel was that the Sessions' Judge be given a direction to expedite the trial.

I allow this request and direct the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law and decide the same at the earliest. The case be taken out of turn. On conclusion intimation be sent to the Registrar of this Court.

With this observation the revision is dismissed.

S.A. 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.