1999 PLP 1039 (MLD)

S. 302/324/148/149-,--Accused placed in column No.2 of the challan summoned by Trial Court to face the trial

Validity

Accused after having been found innocent in investigation had been placed in column No.2 of the final report prepared under S. 173, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had summoned the accused to face the trial as they were nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of exhorting the other assailants persistently to' finish the deceased while armed with guns, in pursuance whereof the deceased was killed by the principal accused by firing

View taken by Trial Court was supported by F.I.R., contents of which were supported by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.-Impugned order of Trial Court summoning the accused to face the trial being unexceptionable, revision petition was dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Javed Ghani for Petitioners. In this revision petition an order dated 30-3-1998 passed by Mr. Khalid Mahmood Cheema, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura is challenged, whereby he had summoned the present petitioners who were placed in column No.2 of the final report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. in a case registered under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.

2. It is contended that the petitioners were declared innocent in successive police investigations and as such were not liable to be summoned particularly when they were placed in column No.2; secondly it was urged that vide order dated 12-8-1996, the Ilaqa Magistrate had discharged the present petitioners after they were found innocent by the police; thirdly it was contended that the learned trial Judge was not competent to summon the petitioners as accused it the case without recording any evidence. As such, it was alleged that the impugned order was beyond jurisdiction, illegal and void. Lastly, it was submitted that there was some sort of compromise on account of which, legal heirs of the deceased had sworn affidavit thereby exonerating the petitioners.

3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also perused the impugned order. It is true that the petitioners were found innocent but were ultimately placed in column No.2 of the final report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted to the Court concerned. The learned trial Judge, after considering the material before him and on going through the F.I.R came to the conclusion that a specific role was attributed to each of the petitioners who were present at the time of occurrence and, as such, they were summoned to face the trial. The view taken by the learned trial Court is supported by the F.I.R , wherein, all the three petitioners are named and have been shown armed with .12 bore guns each. Out of them, Usman Ghani and Muhammad Ishaque were persistently exhorting the other assailants to finish the deceased Shehbaa In pursuance of the aforesaid exhortation, the deceased was done to death due to fire made by the principal accused. The contents of the F.I.R. were supported by the P.Ws in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. As such, the view taken by the learned trial Court in summoning the accused/petitioners remains unexceptionable and does not call for interference in the revision', petition. However, if there is any compromise, of which no evidence is placed before this Court in the form of alleged affidavit etc. The petitioner, if - advised, may bring a proper petition before the trial Court if the offence has already been compounded as claimed in the revision petition.

4. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition being without substance is dismissed in limine. Disposed of with the disposal of the main petition, N.H.Q./M-761/L/ Revision petition dismissed.