The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by Respondent No. 1 by way of which application filed by Muhammad Ashraf Respondent No. 2 for re-calling the order regarding the submission of supplementary challan was re-called.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Qayyum etc. filed an application before Assists Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Bahawalpur levelling allegations of embezzlement against Sardar Ali contractor and Muhammad Ashraf Respondent No. 2. The matter was probed into by the Anti- Corruption Department and FIR No. 43/1999 was registered against the Sardar Ali and Respondent No. 2. During the investigation Respondent No. 2 was found innocent. But during the trial of the said case learned trial Court held that Respondent No. 2 has committed the offence, therefore, the said Court directed the Anti-Corruption Establishment to submit supplementary challan against.
Respondent No. 2. Thereafter upon the application of Respondent No. 2 the said order was re-called by the Respondent No. 1. Hence. this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is against law and facts and also based upon surmises and conjectures.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Without discussing the merits of the case I observed that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in its present form because the learned trial. Court made the observation for submitting of the supplementary challan against Respondent No. 2 while acquitting the accused Qazi Shams-ud-Din and Muhammad Arshad. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 re-called the said order. Writ petition is not lie against the said order. The petitioner should have filed the appeal against the said order. Therefore instant writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.