1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.--- This suo motu revision arises from the order of my learned brother Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, J., dated 26-2-2004, where his Lordship while considering an application for discharge of surety noticed that the accused who were charged for offences under sections 336/337-A(i), P.P.C. As well as 367/368, P.P.C., the respondents were acquitted by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. However, while noticing that offence under section 367 and 368, P.P.C. Were not compoundable, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that for promoting goodwill between the parties he had allowed them to compromise. In support of his view, he appeared to have relied upon Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1994 M LD 1294 and State v. Muhammad Afzal 1994 PCr.LJ 997.
2. ' I have gone through both the above pronouncements of learned Single Judges of the Lahore High Court. I am afraid none of them supports his view. The first one is clearly inapplicable inasmuch as compositions of offences of murder were allowed to promote goodwill but such offences are admittedly compoundable under the law. In the second case, the Court allowed composition of offence to promote goodwill and only which were under the law compoundable with the permission of the Court. Indeed, the consideration of goodwill and amity would always be there whenever a matter is not per se compoundable between the parties and the Courts intervention is necessary. However, when even a Court is not authorized to allow composition of offences no consideration of goodwill can outweigh the plain requirements of law.
3. ' I would, therefore, accept the reference and refer the matter to the learned trial Court, which will issue appropriate warrants to the respondents for their appearance and proceed to decide the