2003 P Cr (PLP)

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that respondent No. l Nawab Din was, an accused in the aforesaid case. The allegation against him therein was that he on 3-9-1997, at about 1-00 p.m. had committed the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased Mst. Shazia Batool, the daughter of the petitioner. The formal charge against him was framed on 13-1-2000. On the same date, respondent No.2, who is father of the deceased made an application before the learned trial Court for permitting him to compound the evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, Multan recorded his statement in respect of the same. He reiterated his stance of having forgiven him (accused/respondent No. l) in the name of Almighty Allah from his ownself and on behalf of other heirs of the deceased. Abdul Latif, the father-in-law of the deceased had also made similar statement therein on that date. According to him, his son Abdul Waheed, who was husband of the deceased had expired and he had divorced her. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the compromise and in view of the same, he proceeded to-acquit respondent No. l from the case vide his judgment, dated 13-1-2000.

3. The petitioner on 24-10-2002 moved an application for recalling the said judgment on the ground that she has been kept out of the compromise while she is not prepared to forgive him (respondent No. 1).

4. The said application was entrusted to the Court of Ch. Muhammad Siddique, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide his order, dated 28-11-2002, dismissed the same with the observation that the same was not competent as appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. lies to this Court against the order/judgment of the acquittal.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with this revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondents Nos. l and 2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents Nos. l and 2 have committed fraud upon the Court by making statement of compounding the offence by keeping her and the other legal heirs of the deceased out of the same and as the fraud vitiates the most solemn transaction and proceedings, hence, the judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan in the case ought to have been quashed or recalled and her application submitted before the learned Sessions Court for the purpose accepted and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1979; that for the above purpose she was not required to bring appeal; and that an order quashing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge could be passed on her aforesaid application.

8. As against the same, learned counsel for respondents Nos. l and 2 has supported the impugned order.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available copies of record annexed to the petition.

10. The respondent No. 1 was acquitted from the case in view of the statement regarding compromise made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

11. I have not the least doubt in my mind that the appeal lies to this Court against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No. 1 vide the aforementioned judgment, dated 13-1-2000 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. The petitioner instead of filing of appeal against the same had gone to the learned Sessions Court with her application for recalling of said judgment of acquittal of respondent No. l. Her that -petition there was not competent as he or learned Additional Sessions Judge could not review or recall the judgment passed by his predecessor/Sessions Judge, Multan. The case-law referred to above 1997 PCr.L J 1979 is of no avail to her as in that case the criminal appeal filed by convict was pending in this Court and in the same order of acquittal was obtained fraudulently on the basis of compromise keeping the real mother out of the same. His Lordship Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, while exercising his inherent power under section 561-A, Cr,P.C. was pleased to observe in that situation that the appeal shall be deemed to be pending.

12. The same is not the position in the instant case. Firstly, because that no appeal was pending in the case and secondly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan did not have power to recall the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Multan and even for that purpose the learned Sessions Judge himself as mentioned above. So with all respect to the said authority, the same is not fully applicable to her case.

13. As the petitioner being aggrieved person could have appealed against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No. 1, hence, proceedings in revision cannot be initiated at her instance in view of section 439(5), Cr.P.C. The instant revision petition, therefore, does not lie. The same, thus, is dismissed as such. H.B.T./F-180/L Revision dismissed.