1991 PLP 1780 (MLD)

Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti and Aftab Sherazi for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1991. The facts leading to this revision briefly are that on 30-8-1988 Noor Muhammad petitioner filed a complaint under section 440/427/452/354 A/148/149, P.P.C. against Manzoor and 11 others, respondents, before Illaq Magistrate, Chiniot, who sent up the same to Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the complainant under section 202(2), Cr.P.C. directing the Illaqa Magistrate to investigate the matter for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. After investigation, the Magistrate submitted report dated 12-10-1988 to the effect that prima facie the accused had committed offences under section 440/452/354-A/148/140, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not agree with the report and directed the Magistrate to associate the accused persons and submit second report. After associating the accused persons in the preliminary investigation/inquiry, the Magistrate submitted his report, dated 2-4-1989 to the effect that no case was made out against the accused persons. When this report came up for consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents were present. Mehmood accused had already died. The eleven respondents stated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they were ready to take special oath in disproof of the allegations against them. On this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge administered oath to Mohabbat, one of the accused on the Holy Qur'an and on the basis of his statement on the Holy Our'an, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. on 19-9-1989, hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not warranted by law. Learned counsel for the State has tried to support the impugned order.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I rind that from the trend of the order it is very much obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much impressed by the oath taken by Mohabbat, one of the accused/respondents. He has not properly attended to the report made by the Magistrate under section 202, Cr.P.C. and the statement made by the complainant before him. The manner in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with the complaint was quite illegal, so, there is no option but to accept this revision. Pursuant to the above discussion, the impugned order, dated 19-9.1989 is set aside and the complaint is sent back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, for proceeding in accordance with law. M.A.K./N-458/L Case remanded.