' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.- Mansha respondent was convicted under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code through a judgment dated 30-9-2003 of the learned Additional Session Judge, Gujranwala and punished inter alia with seven years' R.I. He was the one who was alleged to have commenced the proceedings of the occurrence in question with firing a pistol shot at the deceased which had hit him on the left arm and who was then followed by his co-convict, namely, Saeed who fired the fatal rifle shot at the head of the deceased for which Saeed stands punished with death.
2. After filing his appeal in the Lahore High Court, Mansha respondent moved an application seeking suspension of the sentences awarded to him and his consequent release on bail which petition was argued at some length on 19-11-2003 whereafter the said petition was withdrawn and was accordingly dismissed on the said date i.e, on 19-11-2003. Within 20 days of the unconditional withdrawal of the said first petition. The respondent moved a fresh application in the Lahore High Court for the same purpose without disclosing any fresh ground and without even giving the required certificate at the foot of the application that a petition had been earlier moved for the same relief and had been withdrawn after arguing the matter at length. This time the stars appeared to have favoured the respondent and the petition was allowed through the impugned order dated 18-12-2003. It was nowhere mentioned in the said impugned order, dismissed which leads one to the inevitable impression that the said fact had been intentionally concealed and withheld from the Court. This, by itself, is sufficient to deprive the respondent of the benefits that he had so manoeuvred in such a manner.
3. Even on merits, the reasons which had weighed with the learned High Court in granting the impugned relief were open to serious exception. It could not be decided at this stage that whatever had been stated by the Investigating Officer was admissible at all or whether the same was in- admissible being hear-say. It could also be not said at this stage that the statement in question of the Investigating Officer was not obliging concessions. Therefore, the Honourable Judges had pre- judged lots of matters which could not be done in such a cursory manner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record, we find that the impugned order could not be sustained on any plane. In the circumstances this petition is converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the impugned order dated 18-12- 2003 is set aside re-calling the order of the suspension of sentences passed in favour of Mansha respondent. He is already in custody in pursuance of the warrants issued by this Court. He shall be lodged in Jail to be dealt with in accordance with law.