' The facts leading to this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the order dated 3- 11-1987 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, briefly are, that on 17-2-1984 Ghulam Rasool respondent lodged a report under section 468/471/419/420, P.P.C. Against Mirza Riaz Ahmad petitioner and Sardar Ahmad at P.S. Saddar Bahawalpur.After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalpur. On 9-6-1987, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted Riaz Ahmad and Sardar Ahmad accused under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For want of proof. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Ghulam Rasool complainant filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who on 3-11-1987 while accepting the revision, set aside the order of acquittal and sent back the case for retrial of the accused, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since under Rule 1-A, Part-A(b), Chapter 1 of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Deputy Registrar has been restrained from receiving any petition for revision against the order of acquittal unless it is accompanied by an order of the District Magistrate refusing to move Provincial Government to file appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C.
And no such order of the Magistrate of the District was annexed with the revision, therefore, the same could not have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge; that the accused were acquitted on 9-6-1987 and the revision was filed on 11-8-1987 before expiry of the period of 6 months for filing State Appeal against acquittal, as such, the revision petition was premature and could not have even entertained by the learned Sessions Judge and since Riaz Ahmad petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial, so, the case should not have been sent back for his retrial. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Asif v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 544, Sultan Khan and 3 others v. The State and 2 others 1987 SCM R 237 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Sultan All 1981 PCr.LJ 868. Conversely the learned counsel for the complainant relied on Iftikhar Ahmad v.
Abdul Majeed PLD 1980 Lah. 201 and Syed Parial Shah v. The State PLD 1973 Kar. 265, to contend that the revision filed without approaching the District Magistrate for filing appeal against acquittal or without annexing the copy of the order passed by the District Magistrate in this respect, does not debar revisional Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the revision petition.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the provision of rule 1-A, Part-A(b), Chapter I of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, cannot be invoked to defeat revision petition filed in the Court of Session by a complainant against the order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate. The aforesaid rule may be reproduced advantageously:- "With reference to section 439(5), Criminal Procedure Code, the Deputy, Registrar will not receive any petition for revision of an order of acquittal unless it is accompanied by a copy of an order of the Magistrate of the District, refusing to move the Provincial Government to appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C."
' An examination of the rule reproduced above shows that the Deputy Registrar of the High Court has simply been restrained from receiving any petition for revision of an order of acquittal unless it is accompanied by a copy of the order of the Magistrate of District refusing to move Provincial Government to appeal under section 417 Cr.P.C. And it does not make the revision petition incompetent. This rule has been made as an internal arrangement for regulating the practice and procedure to be adopted by the Deputy Registrar for entertaining revision petition and does not curtail the revisional powers of the Court in any manner. In this rule no reference has been made to section 439-A, Cr.P.C. So, it is not relevant to the procedure to be adopted by a Court of Session for entertaining revision petition. It has nowhere been stated in the High Court Rules and Orders that Clerk of Court will not receive revision petition against acquittal unless the same is accompanied by an order of the Magistrate of the District refusing to move Provincial Government to file appeal against acquittal. It was in the year 1972 that the revisional powers of the High Court under section 439, Cr.P.C. Were conferred on the Court of Session, but no corresponding amendment was made in the High Court Rules and Orders. I feel that unless an amendment is made in the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders in the terms of the provisions of Rule 1-A, Part-A(b), Chapter I, Vol. V of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, the Clerk of Court or the Court of Session, cannot refuse to receive petitions for revision of an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in a challan case.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing retrial of the case after 3 years of the occurrence is against the interest of administration of justice, does not take the petitioner's case any far. The delay of 3 years, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be regarded as inordinate delay in the disposal of a criminal case and as such does not raise any equity in his favour.
' Pursuant to the above discussions, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to decide the case within 6 months under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Bench.