' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This order will dispose of both the petitions as the impugned judgments, arise out of a common incident vide F.I.R. No,747 of 1999, dated 3-12-1999 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar, Kasur.
2. Respondents Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad in Petition No,384/L of 2003 and respondent Tanvir Ahmad in petition No,398/L of 2003 along with co-accused Muhammad Hanif, (since convicted and sentenced to death) were tried by two different Additional Sessions Judges at Kasur for committing Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Sharif, Advocate on or about 3-12-1999.
3. Precisely stated prosecution case is that respondents Muhammad Amjad, Wali Muhammad and Tanvir Ahmad (juvenile) facilitated and assisted main accused Muhammad Hanif in causing unnatural death of deceased Muhammad Sharif. Respondents were tried by two different Additional Sessions Judges for the reasons that Tanvir Ahmad was declared to be juvenile and therefore, tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He could not be jointly tried with the adult persons by reason of section 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance, 2000. Convict Muhammad Hanif was however, tried along with Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad. At the conclusion of the trial, trial Court, convicted Muhammad Hanif who was sentenced to death while Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad were acquitted on appraisal of evidence.
4. An appeal against their acquittal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 6-3-2003 when it was heard in the absence of the appellant's counsel and dismissed through a nonspeaking judgment with the observation that the only allegation against the respondents was that they were empty-handed and did not cause any injury to the deceased.
Appeal against conviction and death sentence awarded to co-accused Muhammad Hanif is stated to be still sub judice before the Lahore High Court.
5. Interestingly, respondent Tanvir Ahmad was tried by a Juvenile Court comprising an Additional Sessions Judge at Kasur culminating in his conviction under section 302(b) and sentence of life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. An appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard by learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who allowed the same vide judgment, dated 14-1-2003 on the premises, inter alia, that the case of this respondent was at par with that of Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad who had been acquitted by a competent Court of law on correct appraisal of evidence. High Court observed that Tanvir Ahmad, was wrongly convicted because he was tried by another Judicial Officer by reason of his status as juvenile offender.
Aforesaid petitions are directed against both the judgments of the High Court recorded on different dates author Judge being the same.
6. We have heard Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. It is, inter alia, contended that in the acquittal appeal against Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad, appellants, counsel had no notice of listing of the appeal while the High Court has neither discussed the evidence produced on record nor assigned adequate reasons for concurring with the opinion expressed by the trial Court. Distinguishing the case of respondent Tanvir Ahmad, learned counsel says that there being enough satisfactory evidence connecting him with the crime he was erroneously acquitted for the reason that two co-accused had been acquitted by the trial Court on almost same set of evidence.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case resulting in conflict of justice on the part of two different Judicial Officers, we are inclined to grant leave to consider, inter alia, the question whether acquittal of the respondents was justified in the backdrop of evidence against them and whether it has been properly appreciated in its true perspective? Another question for examination would be whether both the trials could be conducted by same Judicial Officer at Kasur, in order to avoid contradiction of judgment and whether the impugned order of the High Court dismissing appeal against acquittal of Muhammad Amjad and Khalil Ahmad can be sustained in law? Order accordingly. Bailable warrants shall issue in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs,one lac) against each of the respondents returnable to the Sessions Judge, Kasur.