This will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No-262 and Criminal Revision No.596 of 1988.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are as follows. Against the petitioners, Intizar Hussain Shah and eleven others, a case under sections 148, 302 and 307, read with section 149 of the P.P.C. Was registered on 1--8-1987 on the report of Khadim Hussain Shah, respondent.
The- case was investigated by three different police officers who all were of the opinion that the petitioners were innocent of the offences; according to them, one Liaqat A.I was responsible for killing Ghulam Muhammad, deceased, and injuring Aqil Abbas P.W. Khadim Hussain Shah, complainant, then filed a private complaint on 29-5--1988 and the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, after having an inquiry under section 202; Cr.P.C. Conducted, summoned the petitioners to stand their trial vide his order date 31-8-1988.
2. Criminal Revision No. 596 of 1988 is directed against that order. The petitioners' grievance is that in summoning the petitioners, the learned trial Judge did not take into consideration the material brought on the police file in support of the petitioners' innocence. For his view, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Muhammad Rahim and others v. Qudratullah Ruddy and others (PLD 1986 Lah_2%). I had the occasion to consider this question in Waqarul Haq etc. v. The State (PLD 1988 Lah. 336). Relying upon the dicta in Raja Khush bakhtur Rehman's case (1988 SCMR 1314), I had held that when the Sessions Court takes cognizance, it takes cognizance of the whole case and that A the competence of the Court of Sessions is not affected by or dependent upon the opinion of the Investigating Officer or the material brought on the police file. This view, it appears, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Waqarul Haq v. The State 1988 SCMR 1428.
3. The revision petition is rejected.
4. By Crl. Misc. No.262 of 1988, the petitioners seek the transfer of the case from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is stated that the challan case is still under investigation and neither complete nor incomplete challan has been filed in Court, yet, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is in a hurry to decide the complaint case, without waiting for the challan case. It is settled that when there are two cases arising out of the same incident, one being a B challan case and the other a complaint case, they both have to be tried together, one after the other. In an- fairness to the petitioners therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have stayed his hands till the challan case was sent up for trial. Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose the transfer of the case. I, therefore, accept the petition, withdraw the case from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and make it over to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for trial.