M. S. H. QURAISHI, J. On appeal preferred by the- eight respondents against their conviction under sections 307 and 429 read with section 149, and section 148, P. P. C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, remanded the case to the trial Court for a de novo trial for the reasons, inter alia of non--- compliance of the provision of section 341, Cr. P. C. As two of the respondents, namely, Mahmood Shah and Mukhtar Shah, were deaf and dumb and the trial Court did not initially conduct any inquiry whether they could under--stand the proceeding but appointed an interpreter for them only towards the end of the trial when their statements were to be recorded under section 342, Cr.
P. C. The petitioner, who is complainant in the case, challenged the order in revision before the High Court but having failed, now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The High Court expressed the view that the making of such inquiry at the initial stage of the trial was necessary in order to ascertain whether the accused were able to understand the proceeding or not and that such inquiry, if the case was not covered by section 341, Cr. P. C. Could enable the appel--late Court to satisfy itself that the accused concerned bad a fair trial, or if covered by section 341, the High Court on reference could be in a better position to assert what order should be passed against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that section 341, Cr. P. C. Was not attracted inasmuch as the trial Court, though at a late stage, did record a finding that the said accused Mahmood Shah and Mukhtar Shah ,J were able to understand the proceeding because three of the co-accused were their real brothers who were able to make them understand the proceeding of the case and because their having denied the charge showed that they were, to understand the proceeding. He further urged that the remand of the case as against the six co-accused was not justified because they suffered from no such disability.
4. After hearing learned counsel and also Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan who appeared on behalf of the Advocate-General, Punjab, in response to notice by this Court, we grant leave to appeal to consider the questions raised. Notice shall be sent to the accused respondents and the case fixed for hearing on 23-4-1983. The proceeding in remand shall be stayed.