MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- The petitioner along with others is accused of commission of offences under sections 302/324/109/34 PPC vide case FIR No. 442, dated 3.12.2001 at Police Station, Mandra District Rawalpindi. According to the relevant contents of the FIR, the complainant has alleged that the persons mentioned therein had committed the murder of Zaheer Azhar and caused fire arm injuries to the complainant and Ishtiaq Hussain at the behest and abetment of the petitioner. The investigation has been completed and a challan has been put up before the learned Trial Court placing the petitioner in Column No. 2. The learned Trial Court has summoned the accused persons including the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any evidence, the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to summon his clients. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, urges that evidence is available and is being recorded. Learned Assistant Advocate-General cites the case of Safdar Ali vs. Zafar Iqbal and others (2002 SCM R 63) to support the summoning order.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have examined the judgment in the case of Safdar Ali cited by learned Assistant Advocate- General. I find that their lordships have observed that the Trial Court has the requisite authority to summon the accused persons placed in Column No. 2 of the challan to face trial and that there is no bar stipulated in law that before doing so, the learned Trial Court is required to record evidence to assert as to whether a prirha facie case is made out against such a person. Respectfully following the said dictum, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.