' Office has put up this revision petition for hearing today on urgent basis as ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice.
2. This is a revision petition against the order dated 13-12-2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (Mian Khadim Hussain) ordering for Li'an proceeding under section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 between Zahid Saeed, present petitioner and Shaista Anjum respondent No,3.
3. Briefly stated at the instance of Zahid Saeed present petitioner F.I.R. No,303 of 2003 dated 6-9- 2003 Police Station Sabzazar, District Lahore was registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 380, P.P.C. The occurrence took place on 22nd September, 2002 while the F.I.R. Was registered on 6-9-2003. It may be noted that, later on at the instance of the complainant section 10(2) of the same Ordinance was also added in the complaint/F.I.R. This is so stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at 2nd page of the impugned order.
4. In the belated F.I.R., noted above, complainant Zahid Saeed made allegation that one Mumtaz son of Bashir Ahmad used to come to his house and he enticed away his wife on 22nd of September, 2002 for the purposes of Zina (Haramkari).
5. The lady filed Writ Petition No,14333 of 2003 for the quashment of F.I.R. On the ground of delay and the same was admitted by the learned High Court, Lahore on 14-10-2003. On 21-10-2003 the learned High Court passed the following order:-- "On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent, namely, Sh. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate submits that present petitioner (Shaista Anjum) has developed illicit relations with one Mumtaz Ahmad Mayo, who is fugitive from law and child was born out as a result of their illicit liaisons and in this regard statement of the present petitioner was recorded by D.S.P. He further submits that he will withdraw this case if the allegations levelled against the petitioner are found to be false and requests that metrical examination of the present petitioner should take place to prove whether any child was born or not be the present petitioner who has left the house of her husband more than one year."
' In this view of the matter learned High Court directed bailiff to take Shaista Anjum to M.S. Services Hospital, who constituted a Board of lady doctors and final report was that Shaista Anjum has given birth to a child.
6. It is clear from the contents of the F.I.R. That the present petitioner Zahid Saeed has levelled serious allegations of Zina against his wife and the same were repeated before the learned High Court, where at C the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shaista Anjum was taken to the M.S. Services Hospital and it was proved that the lady gave birth to a child.
7. Shaista Anjum filed an application against the present petitioner Zahid Saeed under section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, before the learned District Judge, Lahore, which was heard by Mian Khadim Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, alleging that her husband has levelled allegation of Zina, therefore, Li'an proceedings under section 14 be taken.
This application was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13-12-2004 and the case was adjourned for 17th of December, 2004 of Li'an proceedings. It appears that the present petitioner Zahid Saeed filed an application for adjournment and the Li'an proceedings were postponed to 22-12-2004.
8. Present petitioner Zahid Saeed has filed this petition against the order dated 13-12-2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the order of the learned trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has misconceived the entire law on the point and there was no legal justification, whatsoever, to get into the Li'an proceedings as ordered by the trial Court on 13-12-2004.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this revision petition further submits that Li'an proceedings can only be taken if the accusations are made before the Court: Secondly the case has been registered under section 16 and not under section 10 of the Ordinance and thirdly there is no statement of the present petitioner, accusing the respondent No,3 of allegations of Zina.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that there is no force in anyone of the pleas of the learned counsel and order of the learned trial Court dated 13-12-2004, ordering the Procedure of Li'an is fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. It is in the F.I.R. By Zahid Saeed that Mumtaz Ahmad accused had abducted wife of the petitioner for Zina. Subsequently, he filed an application before the police that section 10 of the Ordinance regarding Zina should also be added. This is so stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order. Secondly the matter was pending disposal before the learned High Court at the instance of Shaista Anjum that F.I.R. No,303 of 2003 was false and the same may be quashed. In these proceedings the petitioner vehemently stressed for medical examination of the lady with a view to level allegations of Zina and finally the report of the Medical Board that the lady has given birth to a child. In this view of the matter there cannot be two opinions that the petitioner was leveling allegation of Zina against his wife, which is also mentioned in the F.I.R. And the case of the petitioner before the High Court was also the same.
12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Is under section 16 and not under section 10 of the Ordinance. This plea also loses all force when I find that at the instance of the petitioner. Section 10 of the Ordinance was also added into the F.I.R. Whether the case is registered under section 10 or 16 of the Ordinance, this is wholly immaterial. The only question, which requires determination is whether the petitioner has levelled allegations of Zina against his wife.
13. After going through the order of the trial Court and record I am of the view that the allegations of Zina were made by the petitioner and now there is no escape on the part of the petitioner to have denied the same. In these circumstances the application of Shaista Anjum, respondent No,3 has rightly been granted by the trial Court and is fixed on 22-12-2004 for Li'an proceedings.
14. It has been held in Haji Bakhtiar Said Muhammad v. Mst. Dure-Shawar PLD 1986 FSC 187 as under:-- "The question of receiving evidence shall not arise unless the accusation is made order brought before a Court. Unless the accusation is made before the Court or even if made outside the Court and is brought before the Court. Li'an proceedings cannot be commenced."
' In this case the allegations of Zina are not only contained in the F.I.R. But also made before the High Court and the lady was taken to the hospital for her medical examination. Such a plea of the petitioner was only made to make allegations of Zina against her without any ambiguity. Finally the medical report is that Shaista Anjum respondent No,3 has given birth to a child.
15. Learned counsel has also relied upon 1999 SCM R 935, which only contemplates that "a perusal of section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, made in the light of the Injunction of Islam would show that when a husband accuses his wife of Zina before a Court of competent jurisdiction, he shall be asked by the Court whether he is prepared to prove his allegation by producing four witnesses of the standard prescribed in subsection (b) of section 8 of Zina Ordinance, 1979. If he is prepared to do so, the Court will proceed to record their evidence and decide the matter accordingly. But if the husband cannot produce four witnesses of the required standard, then the wife would have a right that, instead of being prosecuted for Zina liable to Tazir under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 she demands the husband to undergo the Procedure of Li'an under section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance.
' In this situation the wife has filed an application under section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 for Li'an Procedure and the application has been accepted by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 13-12-2004. It is further held in the afore mentioned case-law by the Honourable Supreme Court that "if both the spouses undergo the Procedure by swearing the prescribed oaths, the Court shall pass an order to dissolve the marriage between them which shall operate as a decree for dissolution of marriage and no appeal shall lie against it.
Thereafter, all proceedings in connection with the allegation of Zina will come to an end."
' It may be stated that Li'an proceedings have to be completed under section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, which is mandatory.
16. Petitioner Zahid Saeed in para.1 of the revision petition asserted that F.I.R. Was registered at his instance and it was narrated in the F.I.R. That the respondent No,2 Mumtaz Ahmed has enticed away his wife on 22-9-2002 for the purpose of commission of Zina and also has taken away with him 40 Tolas golden ornaments. It is also asserted in para. 2 that 'the Medical Board examined the respondent No3. Shaista Anjum and gave clear verdict that the lady had given birth to a child within one month approximately. The medical result also indicated fresh intercourse".
17. It is proved beyond any shadow of doubt from above facts that the petitioner had levelled imputation of Zina against his wife and in these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was legally correct to order Li'an proceedings under section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance.
18. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 13-12-2004, directing the Li'an proceedings.
19. For reasons stated above, the revision petition is rejected in limine.
Revision .