2002 PLP 1479 (MLD)

Precise allegation against the petitioner and his co‑accused is that petitioner and his co‑accused Muhammad Ramzan being armed with .30‑bore pistol and Muhammad Riaz, being armed with hatchet launched murderous assault upon one Khuda Bukhsh, deceased, the complainant, who as a result of injuries died.

2. Investigation in the abovementioned case was conducted by different agencies and incomplete challan against the petitioner and his co‑accused was submitted before the learned Magistrate Section 30, Khanewal on 27‑10‑1996 and the same was sent to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal under section 190(3), Cr.P.C. The, accused persons were directed to appear before the said Court on 3‑11‑1996. The interim order reveals that during the pendency of this case petitioner was allowed bail and he alongwith his other co‑accused kept on attending the Court on subsequent dates fixed by trial Court. Finally, on 11‑7‑1998 when the case was fixed for framing of charge, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner that charge should not be framed as the petitioner has been placed in column No.2 until and unless, there is formal order for summoning him straightway the charge cannot be framed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 11‑7-1998 dismissed the application and subsequently on 15‑7‑1998 framed the charge.

3. Being aggrieved by this order, present petition for quashment has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 190(b), Cr.P.C. empowers the Court of original jurisdiction to summon those persons whose names are mentioned in Column No.2, of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Further submits that law requires that at the time of taking cognizance Court should pass formal order for summoning of the accused whose name has been mentioned in Column No.2 to face the trial and that in the absence of such order, the trial would become illegal. 4‑A. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of this case minutely.

5. Copies of interim order annexed with the petitioner clearly shows that incomplete challan was placed before the Court, the petitioner and his other co‑accused had been attending the Court regularly and even after the grant of bail to the petitioner, he had never absented himself. Record further reveals that initially petitioner and his co-?accused were placed in Column No.3 when incomplete challan was placed before the Court but subsequently name of the petitioner was placed in Column No.2 and second challan was placed before Trial Court. The objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is too technical and neither it prejudices the case of the petitioner nor it factually affects upon the proceedings pending before the trial Court. It is settled law that Court takes cognizance of whole of the case and not of the accused persons. Interim orders annexed with the file clearly indicate that the petitioner had been attending the Court regularly and there was no need for formal summoning the accused to face the trial.

6. I don't find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, instant petition having no substance stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1184/L??????? Petition dismissed.