SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.---The petitioner has assailed the legality of proceedings dated 28-4-2012, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura whereby the court after examining the record had formed an opinion that charge be framed against the accused/petitioner and proceeded to frame charge as such against Shahzad Ali, Jehangir Babar and Muhammad Rafique. Before considering merits of the case, a brief history of the case is required to be mentioned that is, Shahzad Ali and his two co-accused had killed Muhammad Ashiq as well as Mst. Majeedan Bibi, the brother and mother of the complainant Liaqat Ali In this respect, F.I.R. No,65 dated 22-2-2010 was registered with Police Station Narang Mandi District Sheikhupura.
2. On 2-8-2010, Shahzad Ali, petitioner made an application before the learned trial court with the statement that he is person of unsound mind and remained 'under treatment with different medical experts and admitted in the private and official hospitals, therefore, he be sent to some hospital for his treatment. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17-3-2011, referred the matter of determination of mental condition of the petitioner to the Medical Superintendent, DHQ, Sheikhupura for constitution of a Medical Board. The Medical Board consisting upon about eight members, on 20-10-2011 sent the report to the court declaring that Shahzad Ali, petitioner was suffering from "schizophrenic illness" and is not fit to stand trial. This report was signed by three members while signatures of two members including the Chairperson were made on their behalf and not by the Chairperson and the members themselves whereas three members had not signed the report. The court on receipt of this incomplete report again directed the Executive Director, Mental Health Services, Punjab, Lahore to submit report signed by all the members. In the meanwhile, the complainant/respondent moved an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. For initiating action against the members of the Board for sending the fake medical report regarding the disease of the petitioner Shahzad Ali.
3. The Board again on 19-4-2012, sent the report signed by all the members signed by themselves mentioning that the petitioner is not suffering from active psychiatric illness at present and he is fit to stand trial. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charge against Shahzad Ali and others which order of the court has been impugned through the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner affirmed that the Jail Medical Officer has confirmed the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner and the Medical Board has also given an opinion about the disease suffered by the petitioner which report was subsequently changed by the Board with the pressure that contempt proceedings were pending in the court against them. He further submitted that second report was submitted by the Medical Board without examining the petitioner, thus said report is not acceptable.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No,2 submitted that this plea of unsoundness of mind was never raised before the Investigating Officer nor before the learned Magistrate enabling them to conduct inquiry into the mental health of the petitioner, thus at the belated stage, the said application cannot be entertained. He further argued that in the application seeking determination of mental disease, the petitioner has not appended any prescription regarding his previous treatment before the occurrence, thus this plea has been raised by the petitioner just to save his skin from the liability of double murder. Contended further that the first report submitted by the Medical Board was not signed by all the members and other persons had signed the same on behalf of the original members, thus the report was not proper and the court had rightly desired the submission of proper report in the court. He lastly submitted that the petitioner has not provided any clue in his application that at the time of occurrence, he was suffering from fits of the mental disease and was not in sense thus at this stage, he cannot be heard to say that he was suffering from mental illness. The learned counsel has referred various documents in this regard showing that the petitioner is a hale and hearty person and is an ex- Ranger man who was relieved from his duty due to his overstaying. The learned counsel has also relied upon the "Social Case Work" performed by the medical officers before submission of report to the court which reveals that the petitioner was in habit of asking about the murder cases, result after the murder and arresting issue and it was reported that his intention was not good enough.
The learned counsel further objected that proceedings dated 28-4-2012 taken by the learned trial Court cannot be assailed through instant revision petition.
6. Parties heard. Record perused.
7. Taking the objection of learned counsel for the respondent that proceedings dated 28-4-2012 cannot be assailed through instant revision petition, I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant for the reason that the proceedings did not give any cause of action to the petitioner for institution of this petition. These proceedings were taken by the court after the report of the Medical Board declaring that he is fit to stand trial. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above are neither impressive nor are supported by law. Mere determination by the Jail Medical Officer about the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner has no meaning as the petitioner is residing in the jail and there is a possibility that he had influenced the Jail Medical Officer for declaring him unfit for the trial. She report firstly submitted by the Board on 20-10-2011 was not proper in its form and the court had rightly directed the Board to resubmit the same and the Board on the basis of first examination conducted in respect of the petitioner had submitted second report on 19-4-2012, treating the petitioner fit for facing the trial. When the first report was not signed by all the members of the Board then it cannot be said that the opinion given A by all the members was correct and all agreed with the same. It is very wrong to say that the Medical Board facing the pressure of institution of contempt petition, had changed its view. It is noticed from the application filed by the petitioner that he has alleged his sickness prior to the occurrence and his admission in the hospitals and receiving treatment from different Medical Officers but no proof of such treatment has been appended with the application for examination of the court. This shows the malice on the part of the petitioner to have a wrongful gain by declaring him unfit to stand trial. Similarly, the plea of unsoundness of mind was raised at a very belated stage which also does not inspire confidence and casts serious doubt upon the bona fide of the petitioner. The report made by the "Social Case Work" has commented upon the character and as indicated by the character and mental state of affair of the petitioner that he is interesting in murdering human being as well as in the result if any case is registered in this regard. The evaluation of the whole record as discussed above, leads to the conclusion that the petition in hand is not entertainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition bereft of merits, is dismissed.