' SAWED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant revision petition filed under sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C, the petitioner has called in to question the vires of impugned order dated 2-3-2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore; by virtue of which, during the proceedings of complaint case titled "Haji Qalandar Khan v. Arshad etc." the learned trial court had dismissed the application moved by the petitioner praying for taking the accused/respondents into custody in the complaint case.
2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of the petition in hand are that Qalandar Khan petitioner lodged case F.I.R. No,386 of 2003, dated(sic.) 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore against respondents Nos.2 to 7. Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the police, the petitioner filed complaint under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., against the accused persons; whereby after recording cursory evidence, the accused/respondents were summoned, who submitted their bail bonds on 8-11-2004. After elapse of about six years, the petitioner while referring case-law titled Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611) moved an application before the learned trial Court with the prayer to take the accused persons into custody, which was refused by the learned trial court, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the learned trial court is against the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. Learned counsel next contends that in view of dictum of law in the case of Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611), the learned trial Court was required to comply with the provisions of sections 497, 498, C.P.C., which fact of the case escaped notice of the learned trial court. Learned counsel vehemently submits that in view of judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the complaint case only process under sections 91/204, Cr.P.C. Is not sufficient rather the process of getting bail in terms of sections 497/498, of the Criminal Procedure Code from the competent court of law is the only recourse. It is lastly argued that the impugned order Of the learned trial court is result of non-application of principle of law enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice; hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the accused/respondents vehemently opposes this petition. It is argued that the occurrence took place in the year 2003, the complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant in the year 2004 and the application before the learned trial Court was tiled after elapse of six years. It is vehemently contended that there is chain of judgments of the superior courts of the country contrary to the case-law settled in the case of Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611). Even otherwise, it is contended that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2003 and the pronouncement of the apex Court was delivered in the year 2010 and the same cannot be affected retrospectively. In the end prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition.
5. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as learned Counsel representing respondents have been heard. I have gone through the record available on file, as well.
6. There is no cavil to this proposition that the occurrence, subject-matter of the instant petition, took place way back in the year 2003 and on filing of complaint by the petitioner, after due course of law, the accused/respondents Nos.2 to 7 were summoned by the learned trial A Court, who in terms of sections 91/204 of the Criminal Procedure Code also submitted their bail bonds on 8-11- 2004 and it was first time in the year 2010 when the petitioner filed the application with the prayer to take the accused/respondents Nos.2 to 7 into custody. Having much regard for the dictum of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611) referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, I respectfully mention here that the same is further under challenge before the same apex Court vide Criminal Petition No,549-L of 2011 titled "Sarwar etc. v. The State etc." in which 'Leave to Appeal' has already been granted and 'Larger Bench' has also been constituted. Admittedly it is century old practice qua process as provided under sections 91/204, of the Criminal Procedure IB Code. Even otherwise the accused/respondents Nos.2 to 7 were I summoned in the year 2004 when the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, was not in field. Moreover, if the instant petition is allowed on this ground alone then the whole process of previous six years in all cases arising out of 'complaints' would have to be re-assessed and this practice would not only be against the canons of safe administration of criminal justice rather it would further burden the load-work in die trial Courts of the country. Even otherwise it is not mentioned in the judgment of the august Supreme Court itself that it will take effect retrospectively.
7. The accumulative effect of my above discussion is that the instant petition is devoid of merit/legal justification, which is accordingly dismissed.