The present petition contended for setting aside the order, dated 26-12-1988, passed by Muhammad Nawaz Sukhera, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, whereby respondents Nos.1 to 9 were acquitted in the complaint case filed by the present petitioner under section 506/440/34 and 379/447, P.P.C.
2. It has been contended herein that respondents Nos.1 to 9 had put in appearance for the first time on 26-9-1988 in pursuance to bailable warrants issued on 4-9-1988; and that on 26-11-1988 the complaint was transferred to the Court of Magistrate 1Class, stated above; and that on the same date i.e. 26-11-1988, the respondents were charged accordingly and the complainant was directed to produce his evidence. On 13-12-1988, the petitioner/complainant was again asked to produce his evidence for 18-12-1988 and on the said date two P.Ws. Were duly examined and the case was adjourned to 22-12-1988 for further evidence. On 22-12-1988 the complains submitted an application to the effect that his witness, namely Naeem Ullah was sick and he may be allowed a short adjournment as a result of which the case was adjourned to 26-12-1988, but on that date, one again, the petitioner submitted an application for adjournment on the ground that the said witness namely, Naeem Ullah, was still sick.
3. However, the learned trial Court did not adjourn the case as requested and rejected the application submitted for the same by taking note of the fact that no medical certificate in respect of the sickness of the said Naeem Ullah had been submitted alongwith the said application, and had passed the impugned order dated 26-12-1988 acquitting the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 9 herein and dismissing the complaint of thest
4. The petitioner had appeared in person to prosecute his petition but vide order, dated 7-11-1989 my learned brother Fazal Karim, J. Had accepted the service of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chughtai, Advocate, to voluntarily
5. The petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 5 are very close relatives and the rest of the respondents are tenants of the land in dispute. Respondent No.3 is the real elder brother of the petitioner and respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5 arc his real sons i.e. The real nephews of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, being the brother of his wife. Therefore, the Court had allowed a number of opportunities by way of adjournment to the parties to effect a compromise.
The petitioner at one stage was willing to compromise on the condition that respondents would withdraw all the cases that they have filed against him. Respondents Nos.1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have filed affidavits to the effect that they shall withdraw the cases filed by them against the petitioner, if the petitioner and his son withdraw the two cases that they had filed against respondents Nos.1 and 6.
However, the petitioner finally refused to effect a compromise in any manner.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 26-12-1988 is liable to be set aside and the case remanded to the trial Court as the complaint in question had been dismissed in haste without allowing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce his sick witness. It was further submitted that only three opportunities had been provided to the petitioner and that in the interest of justice he should have been allowed some more time to produce his sick witness. However, as the adjournment being sought by the petitioner before the learned trial Court was based on the sickness of the witness in question, therefore, his failure to support the same by his inability to submit a medical certificate in respect thereof, does not call for interference with the rejection of the application for adjournment as it has been clearly stated by the learned trial Court that the adjournment was not being allowed as no medical certificate had been submitted to establish that the said witness was sick.
7. Furthermore, the said contention has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 9 and it has beet' pointed out that the said witness --Naeem Ullah, was not examined as a preliminary witness in the complaint in question and that the two P.Ws. Examined in support of the complaint, namely, Muhammad Siddique P.W.2 and Qaim Din P.W.3, had clearly stated that they had not seen the said Naeem Ullah at the place of occurrence. It was further submitted on behalf of the said respondents by their learned counsel that under such circumstances the remand of the case shall serve no useful purpose even if a case for the same is made out, as in any case, it is not a case for conviction to view of what has been stated above. These contentions are-duly supported by the evidence on the record,
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 2fi-12-1988, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction whatsoever, hence the present petition is hereby dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-266/L