1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.--On the 1st of April 1967, the petitioner was challaned in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate, Lahore, under sections 406, 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. On the allegation that the petitioner, had committed a criminal breach of trust and other incidental offences mentioned above in respect of a taxi car, which was entrusted to him as a chauffeur, and which was owned by one, Malik Noor Muhammad. It was further alleged that the car in question had been sold by the petitioner without the owner's permission and that he had forged certain documents to go through that transaction. By his order dated the 5th of December 1970, the learned trial Magistrate discharged the petitioner under section 253(2), Cr. P. C. After having examined only one witness, namely, Malik Noor Muhammad, the owner of the taxi, and without even examining the petitioner to explain the prosecution case, as made out against him by the aforesaid statement. The reasons given for the discharge were that the F. I. R. Lodged in the case was belated by 4 years, and that no tangible reason had been given for this delay, and further that the facts given in the statement of P.
2. W. 1, which is un--corroborated, did not make out any offence against the petitioner. This discharge order was challenged by the State in a revision petition in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Lahore, which was accepted. The discharge order was set aside and the case was remanded for further inquiry. It is pointed out in the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate that the learned trial Magistrate has not given any reason for his view that the statement of Malik Noor Muhammad, complainant, which was the only evidence recorded by the trial Magistrate before the petitioner's discharge, did not make out any offence against the respondent. That statement also gave the reason for the delay in lodging the F. I. R.
3. The petitioner then went in a further revision before the High Court, praying for quashment of the remand order by the Addi--tional District Magistrate. A learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed this petition, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that the order of discharge of the petitioner by the trial Magistrate was premature, since even on the unrebutted statement of P. W. 1, there was a case made out against the accused which it was for him to explain. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to meet this argument that even the statement of P. W. Malik Noor Muhammad, which was recorded in the case, does prima facie disclose offences against the petitioner, as alleged against him, and it was wrong to throw out the prosecution case on the ground that no offence was made out against the petitioner on that statement. It may be that the petitioner is able to prove the falsity of the prosecution case or establish his innocence, but there is certainly a case for him to answer even on the bare statement of Noor Muhammad, and to give his own side of the picture. We agree with the learned Single Judge in the High Court that in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate in directing a further inquiry is unexceptionable.
4. The learned Single Judge has further directed that necessary opportunity should be given to the prosecution for examining its witnesses, and the learned Magistrate may then examine the accused, and if he finds the explanation of the accused reasonably possible, he can give due effect to it in the final order. We consider that this was the proper direction to be made in the case, and we see no reason to recall it. This petition is dismissed.