Through the instant writ petitio in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called-in-question the wires of order Idated 02.09.2019 passed by learned Magistrate Section-30, Shujabad, whereby request of the investigating officer for granting five days physical remand of Talha alias.
Talli/Respondent No. 5 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondent) accused of case FIR No. 03/ 9 dated 02.01.2019, registered against-him in respect of offences under Sections 324, 336, 337-F(iiii) &337-F[i] PPC, at Police Station City hujabad, District Multa n has been declined and judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shujabad whereby revision petition filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.
2. ,Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner lodged the aforesaid criminal case against the respondent, who was arrested by the police and %produced before the learned Area Magistrate for physical remand for the recovery of pistol .30-bore but the learned Magistrate, while not acceding to the request of the police, proceeded to send him to judicial lock up vide impugned order dated 02.09.2019. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shujabad which also failed as the same has been dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated. 10.10.2019, hence this writ petition.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent, while relying upon the case reported as "Mirza Sardar Baig v.
M. Akmal Paul and 6 others " (2017 P.Cr.LJ 691), has raised objection regarding the maintainability of this petition and submits that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the impugned judgment rather the investigating officer is competent to challenge the same before this Court.
4. While responding the above query and relying upon the dictum laid down in case reported as "Riaz ul Haq and another v. Muhammcd Naveed and another" (2005 YLR 805), learned counsel for the petitioner , submits that in view of dictum laid down in the referred case, the petitioner being an aggrieved person, is competent to file the instant writ petition hence, the objection raised 'by learned counsel for the respondent is liable to be discarded.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Firstly , taking up the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner . After hearing learned counsel for to parties and going through the case-law cited at the bar, I am of the view that on the analogy of Section 417(2-A)
Cr.P.C, the petitioner is an aggrieved person and after dismissal of revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions judge filed by the State, has locus standi to file the instant petition before this Court, thus, the, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of this petitior, is not tenable in view of law laid down by the Superior Courts on the subject.
7. Now, coming to, the merits of the case. It is observed that the respondent remained on physical remand with the investigating, officer for nine days for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offence, i.e. pistol but during this period, no substantial progress has been made by him in this regard. Learned Magistrate, in the impugned order has rightly observed that the investigating officer was seeking physical remand of the accused in stereo-type manner and had not made any hectic effort to conclude the investigation despite availing nine days physical remand of the accused. The Magistrate was not under obligation to grant full fourteen days physical remand of the accused- respondent at the whims and wishes, of the complainant or the investigating officer. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as criminal case has already been registered against the first investigating officer of the aforesaid case for conducting defective investigation, there was sufficient reason for setting aside the impugned order/judgment considering the element of mala fide of the investigating officer causing prejudice to the petitioner" case, is concerned, the same is repelled for the simple reason that accused remained on physical remand for nine days and the investigating officer had made request to the learned Magistrate for his further physical remand for five days which was declined by assigning valid reasons. It is also noticed that the FIR has been registered for causing injuries on the person of the injured/PW at the hands- of the respondent, thus, sufficient incriminating material in the shape of medical evidence is already available to the petitioner to prove his case against the respondent. Even otherwise, due to efflux of time, there is hardly any possibility of effecting recovery of weapon of offence on pointing out of the respondent in case this petition is allowed and physical remand of the respondent for further five days is granted to the investigating of ficer.
8. For what has been discussed above, no perversity , illegality and material irregularity has been found in the impugned order/judgment passed by both the Courts below . The instant petition is without merits, thus, the same, stands dismissed.