1. SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant criminal revision petition filed under sections 435/436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa, petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 25-5-2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore; whereby the learned court seized with the matter by allowing application tiled by the accused/ respondents Nos.1 and 2, under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., had acquitted them of the charge.
2. ' Succinctly, facts of the case, required for determination of petition in hand, are that petitioner filed a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against Rehmat son of Samanda and Shehzad son of Rehmat before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. During the course of trial, before charge sheet, the accused/respondents tiled an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 21-4-2008. The petitioner/ complainant being aggrieved of the order of the learned trial court impugned the same through filing Criminal Revision No,282 of 2008 and this Court in terms of order dated 15-1-2009, had remanded the case to the learned trial court to reexamine the case. On remand, the accused/respondents again filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., however, the same was turned down by the learned trial court in terms of order dated 25-1-2010. Subsequently after charge sheeting the accused/respondents, another application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. was filed by them and the learned trial court in terms of order dated 25.05.2010, while allowing the same had acquitted the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 of the charge, which has been assailed by means of instant criminal revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore is against the law and facts of the case. Learned counsel further submits that on remand by this Court, on the application filed under section 265-K, Cr,.P.C. the learned trial court while dismissing the application had observed that matter required recording of evidence and thereafter without any progress, again allowed the application, which is not permissible under the law. Learned counsel next submits that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, impugned order dated 25-5-2010 deserves to be set aside. 4.On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2, has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while discussing each and every aspect of the case has rightly dismissed the complaint, which attracts no interference by this Court.
3. 5.Arguments heard. Record available on file has been perused.
4. 6.This is a case of its own nature and style in which after filing of complaint by the petitioner against the accused/respondents, the latter had filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C, which was accepted. The matter was assailed before this Court, which was remanded to the learned trial Court. The accused/respondents again filed another application seeking same relief, which was declined by the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 25-1-2010; wherein it was specifically observed that the matter required recording of evidence for its settlement.
5. Astonishingly without recording any evidence, the learned trial court allowed subsequent application filed by the accused/ respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
6. 7.I have gone through the impugned order dated 25-5-2010, wherein the learned trial court has discussed so many facts and circumstances of the case. However, this is also crystal clear that earlier the same learned trial court while dismissing the application filed by the accused/respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. had specifically observed that the matter required recording of evidence but subsequently without recording a single piece of evidence, acquittal order was passed, which I must say is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, superficial and based upon misconception of law and facts and quite contrary to the earlier order of the learned trial Court.
7. 8.Admittedly the revisional powers of this Court are wider than appeal. In the landmark judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah v. Syed Agha Husain Naqvi and another (1983 SCMR 775); their lordships while commenting upon the scope of revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. held as under:-- "There is no doubt that the revisional jurisdiction of High Court is very wide and that may be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise are brought to the notice of the Court."
8. 9.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is <u>accepted. </u> The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and finalize the same after recording evidence of both sides. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22-11-2010.
9. 10.Before parting with this order it is, however, made clear that if subsequently at any stage, sufficient grounds attract provisions of section 265-K, Cr.P.C., the learned trial court may act strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the observations made hereinabove.