' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In continuation of my earlier order dated 4-4-2005, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that according to (PLD 1993. SC 399) no writ petition can be filed, against the revisional order passed by the learned Court of Session. However, further submits that , ground (iii) of the petition is legal one because at the time of lodging of the case, the complainant had no authority to do so. Adds that according to the settled law of this Court, retrospective effect cannot be given to a penal provisions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the scope of a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is wider than a writ petition. He placed reliance on (1996 PCr.LJ 200).
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also given consideration to the submissions made at the bar.
4. As Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, to be fair to him, has not controverted the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant had no authority to lodge the complaint at the relevant time and that no retrospective effect can be given to a penal provision and as I am also convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the" petitioner, this petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the proceedings pending against the petitioner, on the subject-matter, before respondent No.2, are hereby quashed.