2000 PLP 848 (YLR)

Mubashir Latif Ahmad Petitioner. Sh. Gul Muhammad for the State. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4‑Q, 5‑Q, 6‑Q and 7‑Q of 1993 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. This quashment application has been filed by the petitioner in the instant case against the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner had filed an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed. He filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed. Against the said two orders the petitioner has approached this Court. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition is that it is the constitutional right of the petitioner in spit of the fact that he has been declared non Muslim in the constitution to preach in 6 oneness of the God and into truthfulness the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). He has also referred PLD 19 Federal Shariat Court 8 Mujeeb‑ur‑Rehman v. Federal Government and has referred page 89 paragraph 2 of the said judgment has also referred 1993 SCMR 1718 and has also read before me page 1755 and 17 He submits that no offence whatsoever been committed by the petitioner. 2‑A. On the other hand, learned Sq counsel submits that the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner need d appreciation of the evidence which cannot gone into the present miscellaneous application for quashment of the application.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a great length and have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Mujeeb‑ur‑Rehman the said petitioner went ;o file an appeal before the learned Shariat appellate Bench of Supreme Court against the judgment of Federal Shariat Court but withdrew the same for the reasons best known to him. In the judgment rendered in 1993 SCMR 1718 Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court has held that the findings of the Federal Shariat Court are binding on all the Courts and the judgment given by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court still holds the field. In the instant case the complainant has been examined as a witness and three other witnesses are still to be examined. The petitioner's application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. A revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be gone into after recording of the evidence and need deeper appreciation/appraisal of evidence which cannot be gone into in the present quashment application.

4. For the reasons stated above this' petition is dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months. Prosecution is also directed to produce its evidence. With these observations this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./K‑9/L Petition dismissed.