By this single order , I intend to decide the above titled criminal miscellaneous petitions as both have arisen out of the orders dated 27.02.2018 and 01.1 1.2019 passed by learned Courts below .
2. In a private complaint under Sections 302/324/427/506/ 148/149/34, PPC filed by Respondent No. 3 (the detailed story of the prosecution has already been given in the impugned orders), the learned Magistrate Section- 30, Model Town, Lahore, through the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 has summoned the petitioners/ proposed accused to face the trial under Sections 324/427/506/ 148/149/34, PPC. The said order was assailed by the petitioners through a revision petition, which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 01.11.2019. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Allegedly , the petitioners alongwith others on 22.9.201 1 at 1.00 p.m., started demolishing the wall, despite they were shown a copy of a stay order as well as sanctioned site-plan and also threatened to demolish the building of Respondent No. 3. Thereafter on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. the petitioners alongwith others including 20/25 officials of LDA department brought machinery at the site and started demolishing the building till 2.00 a.m of 23.9.201 1. Again on 23.09.201 1 at 8.00 a.m., the petitioners alongwith 10 officials of LDA department again started to demolish the building, as a result of which the building collapsed at once, caus ing death of four labourers and injuries to many persons. On the basis of cursory evidence recorded as CW-1 to CW-4, coupled with the documentary evidence, the complainant/Respondent No. 3 has been able to make out a prima facie case against the accused/petitioners and the learned Magistrate Section 30, Model Town, Lahore vide impugned order dated 27.02.2018 observed that the offence under Section 302, PPC is not made out and prima facie the offence under Sections 324/427/506/1481 149/34, PPC are made out against the proposed accused/petitioners. The learned Revisional Court after reappraisal the cursory evidence and relevant provisions of law maintained the summoning order of trial Court through the impugned order dated 01.1 1.2019 with the following observations: "the petitioners in this revision petition at- para (i) of ground portion mentioned that the complainant concealed with mala fide intention the fact of acquittal of the petitioner from a Court of compete nt jurisdiction. So by taking this contention of the petitioner it is observed that at the time of passing of impugned order as such no material was before the learned trial Court to adjudicate upon the fact of earlier acquittal of the petitioner rather material available before the learned trial Court was on that which was produced by the respondent in cursory evidence. It has been held by the superior Courts that while passing an order under Section 204, Cr.P.C on a private complaint the learned trial Court has only to take into consideration the material available before it and in case prima facie any connection is made out then a proces s can be issued by virtue of Section 204, Cr.P.C. In this regard reliance is placed on the case law PLD 2007 S.C Page 9. So after examining the record it is observed that the learned trial Court passed the impugned order on the basis of cursory evidence available before it. Since question of double jeopardy was not discussed or agitated before the learned trial Court therefore, it is still open for the petitioners to agitate this ground before the learned trial Court by filing an application u/S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. if so advised and in that scenario the learned trial Court shall adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law .,"
It is further observed in the aforesaid impugned order that: "No time limit is provided under the law within which the private complaint is to be filed. However , if the private complaint is filed with long delay the learned trial Court may while deciding it finally adjudicate upon its worth and at the stage of summoning of persons complained against under Section 204, Cr.P.0 as such the delay of the private complaint cannot be made sole basis for its dismissal. Reliance is placed upon PLD 2008 Lahore 441 titled as "Imtiaz Rubani alias Bilu vs. The State and others ".
5. It is settled principle of law that the evidence at preliminary inquiry within the scope of Section 202, Cr.P.C. cannot be appreciated with the yardstick, it is done on conclusion of a trial by the Court, the burden of proof during preliminary inquiry , for the issuance of process is quite lighter on the complainant as compared to burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on prosecution at trial of an offence, the Court seized with the matter at preliminary stage is not expected to examine the material minutely whereas at the stage of trial, it has to appraise the evidence thoroughly . So far the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioners had been acquitted of the charge earlier , in pursuance of the summoning order , if put to trial in a complaint case, it would be hit by Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 403 of Cr.P.0 and would amount to abuse of process of Court and law may be appreciated while exercising powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, suffice it will be to observe that the propriety demands that at the first instance, trial Court is the proper forum. The petitioners may if so desires file a proper application alongwith the relevant documents to seek the prayed for relief before the trial Court, which shall be decided after considering the documents and facts of the case in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall also examine all other ancillary questions qua maintainability of the proceedings. No legal infirmity or jurisdictional defects could have been pointed out in the impugned orders, calling for interference by this Court, resultantly , both the petitions having no force are hereby dismissed.