' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---In this constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 28-11-2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and order dated 25-7-2006 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Lahore.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner submitted application before police that respondents had killed his brother-in-law (Bashir Ahmad) and on his application case F.I.R. No,333 of 2006 dated 30-5-2006 under sections 302, 365 and 337-J, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents. According to F.I.R. Case was registered after receipt of reports of post- mortem and chemical examiner. However respondents filed application before learned Magistrate-for exhumation of dead body of the deceased. After hearing the parties learned Magistrate accepted the application brought by respondents vide order dated 25-7-2006 and directed Principal King Edward Medical College/Incharge Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology to constitute a board and exhume dead body. The petitioner field revision petition thereagainst which was dismissed vide order dated 28-11-2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Hence this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above petitioner got registered case F.I.R. No,333 of 2006 against the respondents.
However, respondents submitted application before learned Magistrate for exhumation of dead body to ascertain the cause of death which was allowed vide order dated 25-7-2006. The said order shows that enquiry was conducted before disposal of application. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State and another (1987 SCM R 272). Admittedly Magistrate decided the application after hearing the petitioner. As stated earlier order was passed only to ascertain cause of death. So order dated 25-7-2006 is just and proper. The order dated 28-11-2006 passed., by learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that revision petition brought by petitioner was decided after appraisal of entire material available on record. So in the circumstances of the case I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.