' Muhammad Hanif son of Allah Rakha, Malik by caste, resident of Shakargarh District Sialkot by means of this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him under different sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, in the Court of Section 30 Magistrate, Shakargarh.
2. This is second application. The first one (Crl. Misc. No,83-C of 1982) was disposed of by my order, dated 12th April, 1982. In that application the stand taken by the petitioner was that he had moved the trial Court for quashment under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. But he did not the relief. According to the order of the trial Magistrate that application was disposed of because the petitioner did not press the said application. This position was challenged by the counsel who submitted that the petitioner did not make any request to withdraw the application. However, I observed that in case the stance of the petitioner was correct, then he should repeat his application before the Magistrate concerned who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.
3. When the present petition was filed, learned counsel gave an under-taking that he would file an affidavit of the Advocate who appeared before the Magistrate that he never requested for withdrawal of the earlier application. When this petition came up for hearing before me on 26th April, 1982, learned counsel submitted that the Advocate was not willing to give an affidavit. I called for a report from the Magistrate as to what was the stage of the case. Proceedings were stayed in the meanwhile.
4. A criminal case against the petitioner was registered on an application moved by Muhammad Yousaf s/o Muhammad Ismail, to the Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh. Allegation was that on 29th December, 1972, the petitioner filed an affidavit which according to his knowledge was forged,fictitious and baseless.
' According to the report of Judicial Magistrate, prosecution evidence has been concluded.
Statement of the petitioner has been recorded on 24th March, 1982. Case was adjourned to 31st March, 1982 for recording defence evidence. Petitioner did not produce defence evidence, It was accordingly adjourned to 14th April, 1982; thereafter to 21st April, 1982; then to 28th April, 1982 and thereafter to 5th May, 1982 for production of defence evidence. The last date was 19th May, 1982 but as the proceedings had been stayed by me, nothing happened.
' About the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate in his report mentioned that it was withdrawn on 17th March, 1982 by the counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that there is no evidence to substantiate the charge under any one of the sections and in case the trial is allowed to continue "it would be a mockery of law" and would amount to abuse of process of Court.
Incidently, the petitioner is being prosecuted under section 420/467/ 468/471/120-B/418, P.P.C. As is evident from the report of the Magistrate, proceedings have virtually come to an end. Case is being delayed because the petitioner has not produced defence evidence.
' At this stage I am not inclined to express any opinion about the evidence so far recorded.
Naturally, if no case is made out or there is any doubt about it, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal under the law. This petition is accordingly dismissed. .