1993 P Cr (PLP)

Ss. 204 & 439

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34

Issue of process-- Report of the Inquiry Magistrate under S.202, Cr.P.C. was not binding on Trial Court who disagreeing with the same could summon the accused giving cogent reasons

Revision petition against the order summoning the accused was dismissed accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Shat for Petitioner. Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhary, A.A.-G. with Vehniwal for the State. The facts leading to the riling of this revision are that respondent Manzoor Hussain had got a case registered against the petitioner and others with Police Station Saddar Lalamusa, District Gujrat, for an offence under section 3112/34, P.P.C. Name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein. Instead, Najib-ur-Rehman and Abdul Rehman sons of the petitioner alongwith others were mentioned as culprits for having caused death of Rafique Ahmed. The case was got registered on 7-6-1992 and, thereafter, on 14-9-1992, the complainant filed a private complaint wherein name of the petitioner was also included. The learned trial Court sent the complaint under section 202, Cr.P.C. to Magistrate First Class, Gujrat, for inquiry. The learned Magistrate after holding a thorough inquiry, submitted a report to the trial Court wherein he recommended that the complaint was false and the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. The learned trial Court not relying upon the report summoned the petitioner as an accused. In the present revision petitioner had challenged the order of the trial Court summoning the petitioner. It was contended by learned counsel that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the occurrence, therefore, summoning him as an accused was not warranted in law. Argued that complaint was filed after more than three months of the occurrence therefore no reliance can be placed on it. Asserted that the learned Magistrate after recording evidence and assessing the same came to the conclusion that the involvement of the petitioner was doubtful yet the learned trial Court without recording any evidence summoned him as an accused. Contentions were opposed by learned Assistant Advocate-General.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The learned trial Court has passed speaking order whereby he has not agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry Magistrate. The learned trial Court had the benefit of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Magistrate and he could go through the same and arrive at an independent conclusion. Report of the Magistrate under section 202, Cr.P.C. is not binding on the Court which had sent the case to the Magistrate for inquiry. After going through the order impugned, I find cogent reasons have been given to which exception cannot be taken. Petition fails which is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-922/L Petition dismissed.