' Mehdi Khan complainant has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of order of acquittal, dated 26-4-1976 passed by a Magistrate Section 30, Multan in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and upheld by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan, vide order dated 20-8-1977.
2. The facts leading up to this writ petition are that on the night between 19/20-2-1964 at 11-00 p.m.
The petitioner/complainant was sleeping in his house when he heard a call from the outside. He got up and opened the door of his house and saw three persons, one of whom was holding 12-bore gun and the remaining were armed with sotas. One of the respondents who was holding lathi told his co-accused that the petitioner was the person to be attacked, whereupon the other co- accused attacked him and inflicted lath! Blow near his right ear. He tried to enter his courtyard and meanwhile the third accused fired at the petitioner from over the boundary wall hitting him on the front side of his leg He raised alarm which attracted his wife Mst. Walayat Bibi, his sister-in. Law Mst.
Saddan and Mst. Bashiran niece of his wife and his neighbour Talib Hussain. The assailants threatened all the P. Ws. Not to come near them and decamped from the spot. Hearing commotion Zulfiqar Ali, Ghulam Muhammad accused/respondents and one Wali Dad arrived there who removed the petitioner first to the police post where his statement was recorded wherein he did not give out the names of his assailants although he expressed that he would be able to identify them if shown. He was then taken to the hospital where he was admitted. On the third day of the occurrence he sent a chit bearing names of Zulfiqar Ali respondent No, 1 and Ghulam Muhammad respondent No, 2, and one Abdul Haque not challaned as his assailants. The case after usual investigation was put in Court against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to face trial.
3. As consequence of a move made by the petitioner, the case was sent for trial by a Jirga under West Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1963 under the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan dated 21-6-1966. The Tribunal (Jirga) acquitted the respondents, vide order dated 26-8-1970 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition before the Commissioner who accepted it and remanded the case for retrial, vide order dated 9-11-1970, by an ordinary criminal Court. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the remand order of Commissioner, Multan dated 9-11-1970 directing retrial of the respondents, in Lahore High Court, which was disposed of, on 6-5-1975 with the direction that the trial Court should give one more opportunity to the prosecution to produce its evidence and then close the case and pass an order on the basis of material on record. It may be mentioned that the High Court had declared all the proceedings taken place subsequent to 21-6-1966 as null and void. Prior to it only two witnesses namely, Mehdi Khan petitioner and his wife Mst. Wallayat Bibi had appeared and their evidence could be considered legally and was in fact considered by the trial Court for the decision of this case. However, in compliance with the direction of the High Court, the trial Court granted opportunity to the prosecution to produce the evidence yet the petitioner failed to produce any other evidence. I have seen the record which shows that the petitioner was given several opportunities as against the one opportunity allowed by the High Court but without any progress.
4. The Magistrate was, therefore, constrained to lose the evidence of the prosecution and after considering the material before him acquitted the accused/respondents, vide order dated 26-4- 1976, observing that the names of the accused/respondents were not mentioned in the F.1.R.; that the identification was neither possible as it was a night occurrence, nor any identification parade was held. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Judge who upheld the same, vide order dated 30-8-1977.
5. The petitioner has come up in writ against the aforementioned orders passed by the two Courts below saying that the Courts below have failed to comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure by having not secured the attendance of the witnesses in accordance with law.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, perused the record and find that the case was registered in the year 1964 which passed through various proceedings including the trial by a Jirga. The last order passed by the High Court was, dated 6-5-1975, whereby the trial Court was directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence and then decide the case on merits. As indicated above, several opportunities were given but no progress whatsoever was mad in the case rather the petitioner showed his inability to produce his own sister-in-law and a daughter of his sister-in-law, which means that he was least serious in concluding the case. In these circumstances, I find that the learned trial Magistrate had given more than one opportunity to the petitioner as directed by the High Court for producing his evidence. It does not appear that the trial Court in any manner acted in violation of any provisions of law.
However, the jurisdiction, to pass the impugned orders, of the Magistrate as well as the Addl.
Sessions Judge, has not been challenged. This case had been dragging feet in the Courts of about two decades. The petitioner has reasonably failed to make out a case for declaring the impugned orders as void and without lawful authority.
7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is without merit which is hereby dismissed, without any orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.