1989 PLP 752 (MLD)

Ch. Sarfraz for the State. Vide F.I.R. No. 176 dated 14th of August, 1984, the Police Station Mustafabad, registered a case against the petitioners under the provisions of sections 307, 452 read with sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the complainant and had launched an assault on the complainant and caused injuries to Mst. Surraya, Abdul Ghafoor, Mst. Rubina and Muhammad Sharif. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioners were challaned and they faced their trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate with section 30 powers at Kasur.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was moved, which came up for hearing on 16th of July, 1985 and the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the same on the ground, that the two eye‑wtinesses have not supported the prosecution case and further that the complainant had disappeared from the Court. The learned trial Magistrate was also pursuaded to accept the application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. because, it was urged before the learned Magistrate that the parties have compromised and that is why, the complainant is absent from the Court. Having been impressed by the above facts, the learned trial Magistrate allowed the application and acquitted the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State fled a revision petition which was dismissed because the same was not competent and; thereafter, a criminal revision was filed by the complainant invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court directed the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the revision petition was filed before the said forum but according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same was dismissed, in default. Thereafter, a second revision was filed which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 1st of March, 1988.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. In support of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no material on the record to show that the charge could be sustainable. Secondly, despite number of opportunities having been given, the prosecution had failed to produce: the evidence and, therefore the learned Magistrate was justified in recording the acquittal vide order dated 16th of July, 1985. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, although, coercive measures were adopted but despite that, the complainant and the other evidence was not brought forth.

7. I have considered all these contentions and in my view, the administration of justice would suffer, if the complainant is not allowed an opportunity to apprise the Court of his grievance. In this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not arbitrary or perverse, so as to justify, interference by this Court. The case as old one and the proceedings had been stayed by this Court when this revision petition was admitted and, therefore;, I direct that .the learned trial Magistrate shall, in this case, proceed expeditiously on day‑to‑day basis, so that the trial is concluded within a period of two months. The learned trial Magistrate, shall send a progress report about the trial to this Court. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. S.A./A‑565/LPetition dismissed.