This is a revision petition by Nawab Din, complainant petitioner, against the judgment of a Section 30 Magistrate of Faisalabad dated 21-9-1980, acquitting Ghulam Hussain and others, respondents Nos. 1 to 5, on the ground that though the case related to the year 1979, the prosecution, despite repeated opportunities and adoption of coercive measures, had failed to produce a single witness in Court.
The report of the Process-server shows that copies of summons for Ghulam Hussain, respondent No. 1 were served by affixing a copy of the same on the outer door of his residence and delivering another copy thereof to his father, Bashir Ahmad. Ghulam Hussain, respondent No. 1, therefore, stands adequately, served. No body is present on his behalf.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and the State end have perused the record. It appears that the present case arises out of execution proceedings that took place in favour of Talib Hussain, respondent No. 5, against Ashiq Malik and his were Mst. Jamila. The case of Nawab Din, complainant /petitioner, who is brother of Mst. Jamila, is that the execution proceedings were illegally conducted and two persons were injured in that respect. It appears that Talib Hussain, respondent No. 5 later also registered a case (F.I.R No. 2151 against his adversaries. This was referred .To the Martial Law Authorities, where Nawab Din, complainant /petitioner his brother-in-law, Ashiq Malik, and Talib Hussain respondent No. 5, compromised the matter, where they agreed to treat Talib Hussain, respondent No. 5, as the undisputed owner of the disputed property and to withdraw cases pending against each other. A copy of this compromise, dated 30-7-1977 has been placed on record by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Pursuant to this compromise, Talib Hussain, respondent No. 5, withdrew his case (F.I.R. No. 216 of 1977), but the present complainant/petitioner, Nawab Din, wants to still pursue his case (F.I.R. Na. 208 of 1977). In the challan in the instant case, the investigating agency also referred to the fact that the parties had compromised the matter and that they be summoned to give statements accordingly However the petitioner presented a volte face and compelled the Magistrate to summon the accused, but the Magistrate only summoned Mst. Jamila and Nadeem to give evidence before him. The said two witness to harass the accused by delaying the case deliberately refrained from appearing in court by avoiding receipt of summons. The record shows that coercive stops were also taken for their service but without any result. In these circumstances the trial Magistrate was correct in closing the evidence and acquitting the respondents as the case was an old one. The petitioner does not deny the compromise. There being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed.
S.G.D Revision not allowed.