' This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, against the ,order of a First Class Magistrate of Gujranwala, dated 10-8-1970 discharging Muhammad Sadiq and others, respondents Nos. 2 to 6, under section 259, Cr.P.C. In respect of a case instituted against them under section 452/149/148, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, lodged a private complaint against Muhammad Sadiq and others, respondents Nos. 2 to 6, under section 452/148/149, P.P.C.
Before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Gujranwala. After holding the necessary inquiry, the Magistrate on 17- 9-1968 summoned the respondents to face their trial. No respondent was served notwithstanding hearings extending over twc years. On 10-8-1970, the complainant and all the respondents being absent, the learned trial Magistrate discharged the respondents under section 259, Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions, which was dismissed on 20-12-1971 for non-prOsecution.
3. Mr. Shaukat Rafiq Bajwa, Advocate, appears for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Dogar, Advocate, appears for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Ch. Muhammad Idrees, Advocate, appears for the State. Registered Post Cards were issued to respondents Nos. 4 to 6, but nobody has turned up on their behalf.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the Magistrate could' not have discharged the respondents under section 259, Cr.P.C. As offences under sections 148 and 452, P.P.C. Were cognizable. As regards the dismissal in default of the first revision petition before the Sessions, it is submitted that the arguments on the revision petition were heard on 8-4-1970 and the case was fixed for orders for 17-4-1971, whereafter, the case was adjourned from day to day for one reason or the other and was ultimately fixed for 20-12-1971, on which date the petitioner was present in the early hours of the morning when he made inquiries from the Reader and was told by him that he should wait outside and that the case shall be called in due course. The petitioner waited till the closing hours of the Court and was ultimately informed by the Reader that the revision had been dismissed. Since arguments in the case had been heard before, the petitioner felt that the revision petition had been dismissed on merits, but it was only after the certified copy was received that he fotnd that the petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. On behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 it is submitted that the occurrence took place on 21-6- 1967 and after, the lodgment of the complaint, only the complainant's statement was recorded on 20-11-1967 whereafter the case was sent to the police for inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on 30-8-1968 the report under section 202, Cr.P.C. Was received from the Ilaqa S.H.O. Who 1,,id that no case appeared to be made out, as no evidence was produced before him.
However, on 17-9-1968 the Magistrate summoned the accused/ respondents to face their trial holding that a prima facie case stood. Made out, whereas according to the inquiry report under section 202, Cr.P.C. No case stood made out. It is lastly contended that nineteen years have passed since the alleged occurrence took place and that the case should not be sent back for disposal. In this connection Munir Ahmad's case 1972 P Cr. L J 596 and Allah Din's case 1973 P Cr. L J 563 are referred.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to this case From the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apparent that the first revision petition was illegally dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge of Gujranwala on 20-12-1971. The submissions of the petitioner are supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, which stands annexed with the petition. In these circumstances, the order o A the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 20-12-1971 is set aside. The first revision petition is remanded to the learned Sessions Judg of Gujranwala for disposal on merits after notice to the parties.