' TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.---On 30th October, 1987 it was reported that respondent No,1 Murad Bakhta who was married to petitioner Gulam Muhammad was pregnant before consummation.
She implicated respondent No,2 Abdul Wadood having committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. On 17-12- 1987 she implicated respondent No,3 Abdul Sattar who was alleged to have committed Zina-bil- Jabr with her. She further stated that respondent Abdul Wadood was earlier implicated by her on the instigation of her husband Ghulam Muhammad, the petitioner. A charge was framed against all the three accused under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979. The learned Sessions Judge, Loralai, after recording the evidence and hearing arguments acquitted the respondents No,1 to 3 by his judgment dated 31-3-1990. The petitioner Ghulam Muhammad being aggrieved with the said judgment filed a criminal revision against that acquittal.
2. Now, an application has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has prayed for withdrawal of the revision petition filed by him as the matter has been compromised between the parties. He has also annexed an agreement of compromise wherein, inter alia, it has been agreed that the second party (respondents) will pay to the first party (the petitioner) a sum of Rs,20,000 as damages and in addition thereto will give to the first party Baby Rahim Bibi, daughter of Abdullah Jan, aged 3 years and Baby Noor Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Fazal, aged 2 months, and that the first party will give in marriage the abovesaid two minor girls to Abdul Ghani son of Faiz Muhammad, aged 11 years and Abdul Baqi son of Char Muhammad, aged 7 years, who will be married with them on the girls' attaining puberty. The compromise is unconscionable. In fact, it amounts to bartering away the two babies which is not only repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, but also against all canons of ethics and morality. Moreover, an offence punishable with Hadd under the Shari'ah cannot be compromised or withdrawn or pardoned even by the State after the same is brought to the Court for adjudication as it involves the enforcement of Hudoodullah. ( ).
3. Furthermore, the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw the revision at his sweet will and this Court is not relieved of its duty from examining the record of any case decided by any Criminal Court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satsifying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by such Court or as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Court, after this Court has taken cognizance of the matter on the application of any person or on its own motion under its suo motu jurisdiction, as provided under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the application for withdrawal is rejected.