1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Petitioner is complainant of a private complaint titled "Asif Latif v. Alam Khan and others" for the offence under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/341/506/ 148/149, P.P.C. Learned trial Court (Magistrate) after recording the, reliminary evidence vide order, dated 17-2-2004 summoned the respondents to face the trial. This order was assailed before Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in the revisional jurisdiction who vide order, dated 7-8-2004 while accepting the revision petition dismissed the complaint. Through this constitutional petition legality of the order of said revisional Court has been challenged.
2. Heard file perused.
2. ' Bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the revisional Court has allowed the revision because in his view the statements of the witnesses were recorded in two different type of handwriting and there is no clarification by the concerned Magistrate in this regard and thus, the revisional Court held the proceedings as null and void.
3. ' After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and going through the record, I have observed that there is no force in the observations of learned revisional Court because copies of the evidence placed on record reveal that those were signed by the Magistrate as well as thumb- marked by the witnesses and prima facie there is no such illegality in the proceedings as pointed out by the learned revisional Court while passing the impugned order. Order of the trial Court reveals that learned Magistrate after the application of conscious mind when satisfied that the evidence available on record prima facie is sufficient to connect the respondents with the commission of offence has directed them to join the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 7-8-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali is not sustainable.
4. The same is set aside with the direction to the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.