This criminal revision is directed against:---
(a) the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate dated 10-7-1990, by which he had convicted Mehtab Ahmad petitioner and his co-accused Fateh Naseeb under section 325/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. Each; and
(b) the judgment, dated 9-6-1991, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal of Mehtab Ahmad petitioner after maintaining his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial Court and acquitted Fateh Naseeb co-accused on the acceptance of his appeal.
2. It may be mentioned here that Sultan Akbar complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.630 of 1991, challenging the acquittal of Fateh Naseeb co-accused by the, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 9-6-1991. This revision also stands admitted to regular hearing and this order shall dispose of both the criminal revisions.
3. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for Mehtab Ahmad petitioner in Criminal Revision No.649 of 1991 was that the trial Magistrate had neither written the evidence in the case nor the judgment and all these proceedings were in the hands of some of his Court officials. In view of this contention, the record of the case was summoned and the learned trial Magistrate was asked to offer his comments. In his comments, dated 1-2-1991, he has stated that out of 12 prosecution witnesses, the statements of 11 P.Ws. Were recorded by his predecessor-in-office and he himself wrote the statement of only A.S.I. Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.12) as also the statement of Hafiz-ur--- Rehman (D.W.1). However, according to him, the statement of Altaf Hussain D.W.2 was recorded by his Reader under his dictation. With regard to judgment, dated 10-7-1990, he took up the position, that it written by his Court official under his dictation and he signed it and also initialled every page thereof. In view of this report, since there was a possibility of the case being remanded for retrial or rewriting of judgment, either by the same Magistrate or by someone else, after setting aside the conviction and sentence of Mehtab Ahmad petitioner, which also could have inevitably entailed the setting aside of the order of acquittal of his co-accused, namely, Altaf, Zafar Hayat, Muhammad Irfan and Aftab (who were acquitted by the trial Court) and Fateh Naseeb (who was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge), notices were issued to them to afford them the opportunity of being heard and they represented by their counsel Mr. Masood Mirza, Advocate, who already represents Mehtab Ahmad petitioner, have put in appearance.
4. It appears that the learned trial Magistrate has purposely withheld the information regarding the statements of 11 witnesses recorded by his predecessor-in-office because he could easily ascertain from his Reader or Ahmed, who must be acquainted with the handwriting of his predecessor-in---office. Anyhow, the fact remains that he did not write the judgment himself and it was written by one of his Court officials in Urdu. I doubt his assertion that he dictated this judgment. It must have been written by the concerned official himself and the learned Magistrate must have only signed and initialled it. In these circumstances, the original judgment of the trial Court, dated 10-7-1990, is not sustainable and as a necessary consequence thereof the judgment, dated 9-6-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall also crumble down.
5. Resultantly, not only the conviction and sentence of Mehtab Ahmad petitioner is set aside but the orders of acquittal of Altaf, Zafar Hayat, Muhammad Irfan, Aftab Ahmad and Fateh Naseeb co- accused are also recalled, and the case is remanded for rewriting of judgment by some judicial g officer invested with the powers of a Magistrate 1st Class to be nominated by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha. Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before him on 24-2-1992. Record of trial Court should immediately be sent back.
6. Both the revisions are disposed of accordingly.
SA./M-225/L