' Allah Ditta filed the present revision petition against order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated 9th July, 1983, whereby his complaint was dismissed under section 203, Cr. P.C.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are that Allah Ditta filed complaint on 21st December, 1981, against Muhammad Nawaz and five others for offences under sections 148, 307, 325/1149, P.P.C. With the allegations that on 12th October, 1981 at about 6 a.m. The accused mentioned in the complaint and Taja (deceased in the cross-murder case) constituted an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of said unlawful assembly committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and made murderous assault on Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Aslam, that Bahadur Khan, Muhammad Arshad, Ashiq Hussain and Akbar Ali were attracted to the spot who caused injuries to Taja, Arif, Anwar and Mehdi accused and Taja expired due to the injuries. The complainant appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and made statement on 20th June, 1983. He produced Muhammad Arshad and Bahadur in support of his statement. He also produced medico-legal reports of Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Aslam. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had grossly misread the record and considered Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Anwar as the injured witnesses from the complainant side, whereas the said two persons were the accused in the complaint and witnesses in the cross-murder case,that the challan case as well as the complaint case were to be tried side by side and disposed of simultaneously; that by dismissing the complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had given a finding of guilt against the accused persons in the challan case and had pre-judged both the complaint case as well as the challan case.
4. Admittedly, there were two versions of the same occurrence. It was stated by Allah Ditta complainant that Muhammad Nawaz, Taja and others were the aggressors. The complaint was filed in the Court of the Magistrate, who sent it to the learned Sessions Judge for proper order conveying the intimation at the same time that the cross-murder case was pending in the Court of Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. The complaint was entrusted to Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 9th February, 1982. On the said date, the learned counsel for the complainant informed the Additional Sessiions Judge that the cross-murder case had been entrusted to lnayatullah Cheema, Additional Sessions Judge. The case was again sent to the learned Sessions Judge that it may be transferred to the Court of Inayatullah Cheema. The order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the complaint was sent to the said Court for disposal. The complaint was again sent to the Court of Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi on the ground that the cross-murder case was pending in his Court. In the meantime, Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi was transferred. The record shows that the complaint came on to the file of his successor namely, Muhammad Ashraf Butt. The complaint was withdrawn from his Court by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 6th December, 1982 on the ground that Muhammad Ashraf Butt had gone to attend the Shariat Course. It was entrusted to Mian Habib-ur-Rehman for disposal. The record shows that on the transfer of Mian Habib-ur-Rehman the complaint came on to the file of Khizar Hayat, Additional Sessions Judge, who sent the complaint to the Sessions Judge vide order, dated 1st March, 1983 on the ground that the cross-murder case was pending in the Court of Muhammad Ashraf Butt. A correct view had been taken up by Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi, Inayatullah Cheema and Khizar Hayat, Additional Sessions Judges, who were of the view that both the cross cases be disposed of by the same Court. The general practice of the Courts is to try cross-cases side by side and pronounce the judgment in each case simultaneously. In the instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the complaint, did not keep in mind cases Abdur Rehman Bajwah v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1'981 SC 522 and Muhammad Sadiq v. The State and another PLD 1971 SC 713. Besides, the learned counsel was perfectly correct in arguing that it was a case of misreading of evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the medico-legal reports of Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Anwar, who were not injured witnesses in the complaint and were injured witnesses of the cross-murder case. The consideration of this evidence resulted in miscarriage of justice. From the complainant side Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Khan had received injuries. The complainant had tendered their medico-legal reports. After perusing the record and considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner I accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner conveyed information that now the challan case was pending in the Court of Khizar Hayat Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat.
The complaint is entrusted to the said Court for disposal in accordance with law.
' The proceedings in the cross-murder case had been stayed and the said order is re-called and the learned Additional Sessions Judge may proceed with the trial of the murder case.