ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges report No. 6825-28, dated 31.10.2012 prepared by respondent No. 1 on the basis of mala fide and illegality.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that on 20.09.2012 the petitioner was injured by Israr, Nabeel, Muhammad Arshad, Majid Khan, and Bilal. The injury was inflicted on his nose. On the said date he approached the police and was sent to THQ Hospital Hizro for medical examination where-after Medico-legal Report was prepared and X-rays of the nose injury was advised and it was kept under examination for final opinion of the Radiologist, vide report No. 1496, dated 25.09.2012 a fracture of bone was showed and the medical officer (Radiologist) declared the injury as Shajjah-i- Hashimah where-after F.I.R. No. 384, dated 12.10.2012 under Sections 337- F(iii)/34, PPC at Police Station Hizro, District Attock was lodged.
An application for constituting a medical board before the concerned Judicial Magistrate was accepted on 02.10.2012 whereafter the medical board was held on 31.10.2012 which, declared the injury of the petitioner as fabricated and suspicious, on the basis of first medical examination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding of the board is against law and facts of the case; that as per report of the Radiologist the injury was declared as Shajjah-i-Hashimah but the said Radiologist was not the member of the Board; that no mentioning of the word "fabrication" was made in the MLR; that report dated 31.10.2012 is illegal and not based on facts and was passed by a board which was not validly and legally constituted; that the original record of MLR reveals different handwriting showing the word "Yes"; that the board was constituted on 25.10.2012 and the first MLR was prepared on 20.09.2002 i.e. After 1 month and five days of the occurrence and that after period of 21 days the MLR looses its veracity; that injury on the body particularly on the face heals up by the said' time. Learned Magistrate did not fix any date and the Investigating Officer has not issued any notice for the board. The board was not required to be constituted if injury was declared fabricated. Places reliance on 1999' SCMR 1881 & 1072, 2003 P.Cr.L.J. 347 and 2012 SCMR 455 to argue that writ petition is competent and prayed relief can be granted.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no need of Radiologist in the Board as under the law four required members were present in the Board; that the copy placed in the writ petition is not certified which makes the case entirely doubtful that before the constitution of the board notice was issued by the learned Magistrate; that notice to the petitioner was issued firstly on 11.10.2012, then on 18.10.2012 and lastly on 25.10.2012 but he appeared after wasting the period of 21 days; that as a consequence of not appearing of the petitioner the injury of the petitioner appears to be a doubtful one; that even medical board was constituted after 26 days. Places reliance on Shahid lqbal v. State and another (PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 256) and Muhammad lqbal v. Additional Session Judge, Khanewal and another (2004 MLD 1401 (Lahore)).
Lastly submits that the occurrence of the F.I.R. Has taken place on 20.08.2012 and the first medical according to the petitioner was conducted on 20.09.2012 i.e. After lapse of about one month and as such the first medical report was absolutely fake.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly the occurrence of F.I.R. Is dated 20.08.2012 and the MLR is dated 20.09.2012. The application for constitution of the medical board was moved immediately which was granted by the learned Magistrate on 2.10.2012 i.e. Just about 12 days after the first MLR. The stand of respondent No. 2 is that firstly notice was issued to the petitioner for his personal appearance before the board on 11.10.2012 and then on 18.10.2012 but he failed to appear on these two dates.
However, on 25.10.2012 he appeared deliberately after 21 days of the date of first MLR. The record reveals that copy placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner seems not to be correct.
Neither certificate is correct one. As it was got prepared prior to the final opinion of the Radiologist and the original certificate based on fabrication was stated as YES. Even otherwise the opinion of the board cannot be substituted by this Court in its exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The consequence of non-appearance of the injured before the board is well-explained in the judgment cited as Shahid Iqbal v. State and another (PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 256.
7. In view of above, this writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. .