' The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are, that in case State v. Khizar Hayat and 2 others, under section 5 of the P.C.A. 1947 pending before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, Mst. Naseem Akhtar petitioner is a prosecution witness. She is Purdah-observing lady. An application was moved on her behalf for recording her evidence through commission.
Respondents Nos. 2 to 4/accused, had no objection to her examination through commission, therefore, the learned Special Judge vide his order, dated 22-1-1983 accepted the application and asked the learned District Magistrate for deputing Magistrate as Commissioner. The learned District Magistrate deputed Zafar lqbal Gill Magistrate to record the statement of the petitioner on commission. Since the statement of the petitioner was to be recorded in the presence of the accused and the particulars of the accused were not given in the letter sent by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption to the learned District Magistrate, therefore, the learned District Magistrate requested that the addresses of the accused persons be supplied so that the needful be done. On this the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption cancelled his order, dated 22-1-1983 on 27-4-1985, hence this revision.
2. The order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption reads as follows:- "Learned S.P.P. Present. Statement recorded through the commission (Magistrate) of Mst. Nasim Akhtar not received. The A.D.M., Lahore intimated that the particulars of all the parties are not available. I think that the commission be cancelled under the circumstances and I order accordingly. An intimation be given to the D.M. P.W. Be summoned for 20th of May, 1985."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any fault of the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents to oppose this revision.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with .Care. I feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the order passed by the learned Special Judge is not only illegal, perverse but also arbitrary one. He has condemned the petitioner unheard and punished a Purdah-observing lady, without any fault on her part. It was the duty of the learned Special Judge himself to furnish the complete particulars of the parties to the District Magistrate while asking him to depute Magistrate for recording the statement of the petitioner on commission. The learned Special Judge did not even care to give notice of his intention to cancel his previous order to the petitioner and cancelled the same at her back.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the order, dated 27-4-1985 is set aside.
Resultantly the order, dated 22-1-1983 of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption stands restored. The learned Special Judge shall furnish the addresses of the parties to the District Magistrate as requested by the latter in his letter, dated 10-2-1985 so that the petitioner is examined through commission.