1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Jam Jan Muhammad, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19th of April, 1988.
2. ' The petitioner filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Requesting for some modification in the judgment delivered by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No,103 of 1984. The relief sought for was that the petitioner wanted certain remarks and observations for the registration of a criminal case against him to be deleted. It was further prayed that the similar remarks made by the Sessions Judge in his judgment, dated 17-4-1984 in connection with a murder case against Munir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad who were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof two years' R.I. Each, be expunged.
3. ' What actually happened is that the Sessions Judge, Multan, in his judgment dated 17-4-1984 made the following observations:- "After reviewing and appreciating the statements of the Ahlmad and the Advocate and the original record of the complaint case no doubt is left in my mind that this complaint case alongwith its record is a clear forgery and has been attempted by Jam Jan Muhammad, the Magistrate, in collusion with Muhammad Nishan Advocate and Munir Ahmad accused, I, therefore, reject the plea of alibi raised by Munir accused."
4. ' The background of these remarks and observations was that one of the accused in the murder case, namely, Munir Ahmad raised the plea of alibi. In order to establish the same, he filed a complaint in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad, on 13-6-1982. It was while dealing with this aspect that the above-mentioned observation was made by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. ' When the matter came before the High Court, it was observed as follows: "We further direct that the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, to act in accordance with law whilst complying with the direction of this Court given in para 21 of the judgment dated 25-10-1987. The learned Sessions Judge shall decide whether a complaint should be filed, or a case should be registered with the police. In either case, he shall also attend to the question of sanction being obtained for prosecution of the petitioner and the other directions given."
6. ' In para. 21 of the judgment dated 25-10-1987 the High Court directed the learned Sessions Judge Multan, to register a case with the police regarding the forgery and fabrication of the complaint case titled "Munir Hussain v. Muhammad Hussain etc. Which was surreptitiously introduced into the records of the Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad.
7. ' The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, contended that the trial Court as well as the High Court acted contrary to law in giving a direction which is almost an order to prosecute the petitioner without affording him any opportunity of hearing and explaining his position. This was the solitary contention raised before us. We do not think that this has any force nor it amounts to either condemning the petitioner unheard or violates any provision of procedural or substantive law.
8. ' The High Court has taken care of this aspect and that is why the Sessions Judge was directed to act in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment of the High Court which may require interference by this Court. As a result, this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.