' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, C. J.-Through this revision petition, the petitioner Muhammad Abdullah, challenges the order, dated 26th March, 1984, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh. He acquitted all the respondents of offences under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 312/ 318, P. P. C.
2. This revision petition has been filed after about 485 days of the order of acquittal. Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri appears on behalf of the respondents and raises a preliminary objection to pray dismissal of this appeal either as barred by limitation or laches. Admittedly, no period is provided in the law or the rules for entertaining a revision petition. The objection on the basis of the limitation, as such thus is not entertainable. We on the other hand, find that the delay has been caused intentionally and the revision petition has been filed only after suits for damages have been filed by the respondents in the Civil Court on 2nd of January, 1985, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, therefore, normally would not have entertained a revision petition after such an inordinate delay. It is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground.
3. We have also heard the learned counsel on the merits of the case just to see that no injustice is perpetuated. It is contended by the learned counsel that there being extra-judicial confession, corroborated by the recovery of foetus and also supported by Abdur Rehman (P. W. 6), Ikramullah Khan (a Police Officer P. W. 8), Dr. Sh. Muhammad Iqbal (P. W. 1) and Lady Doctor Hussan Bano Jaffer (P. W. 2) it was a case of conviction.
4. It is to be noted that the stand taken by the defence was that Mst. Robina, was a married woman and that the miscarriage had taken place due to an accident. In this view of the matter, the prosecution was required to prove not only the recovery of foetus but also its illegitimacy. That, however, has not been done. There is no evidence about the complicity of other respondents. The whole case of the petitioner is rather met by defence which was duly considered by the trial Court.
5. It may also be seen that Muhammad Abdullah complainant, who appeared as P. W. 3 before the trial Court, had even delayed the F.I.R. For 8/9 days without any justification. He is a son of a Chowkidar and is in no way related or otherwise concerned with the accused. His whole case was that Mst. Robina had confessed not only her illegitimate relationship with Masood but that she and others got the abortion done and concealed the foetus. It is not clear as to how was he such a confident of the girl. It appears from his statement that he took undue interest in the prosecution of the case inasmuch as he engaged an Advocate and has been pursuing the case not only before the trial Court but in this Court also. We, therefore, would not encourage such a situation unless there was some substantial material before us.
' In this view of the matter, this petition has no merit and is dismissed both on merit and on the question of laches.