1985 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1984. Through this petition Ch. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner wants this Court to expunge remarks relatable to him given in sub‑paragraph No. 2 of para. No. 6 of the judgment, dated 21‑4‑1984 in Criminal Miscel laneous No.363‑8 of 1984/Multan (1984 P Cr. L J 1589).

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly are that the petitioner is a Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police. He is attached to the Court of Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore to prosecute anti‑corruption cases. In an application for bail moved by Muhammad Asghar Mehmood in case under sections 409/467/468/471/2181 161/109, P.P.C., the petitioner appeared as Prosecutor. The bail was allowed by Senior Special Judge. It so happened that co‑accused Nazir Ahmad and others moved application for bail after arrest in Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. The petition came up before me. 1 gave suo motu notice for the cancellation of bail to Muhammad Asghar Mahmood and others who had been allowed bail by the learned Senior Special Judge. While deciding those matters, I, in paragraph No.6 of the judgment observed as follows:‑ That the learned Prosecutor was perhaps in league with the respondents as he did not bring to the notice of the learned Senior Special Judge the evidence collected by the Police against the respondents. hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the affidavit of the petitioner to contend that the petitioner/ prosecutor was unaware of the facts of case at the time of hearing of bail application and had in fact brought to the notice of Senior Special Judge that the record was not available, despite that the learned Senior Special Judge had confirmed pre‑arrest interim bail. The learned counsel for the State has not opposed this petition.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties with care. It is well settled that a Judge has power to reconsider and expunge observations damaging to any person and this does not tantamount to review of a criminal judgment. I find that the petitioner has placed on record affidavit to the effect that he had brought to the notice of Senior Special Judge, that police record had not been received and that the learned Senior Special Judge confirmed interim pre‑arrest bail without record. There is nothing on record to rebut this affidavit. The remarks were made in the absence of the petitioner. In the circumstances I feel pleasure to say that I find myself in a position to record now that I may perhaps be wrong in writing that "perhaps the petitioner was in league with respondents". The remarks against the petitioner, therefore, be deemed to have been expunged. M.Z.M. Order accordingly