' This is a petition for revision of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore on 31-8- 1992 whereby he refused to refer this case to this Court for the entrustment of the trial to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a case under sections 302/307/428/452/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore on 2-3-1990 against Arshad All petitioner and five others at the behest of one Ghulam Rasool, wherein it was alleged that over the dispute of plot of land which the parties were litigating in the Civil Court, the accused persons while armed with fire- arms trespassed into the premises and resorted to firing, in consequence of which Makhdoom Hussain, a brother of Ghulam Rasool received the injuries and died at the spot and complainant Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Sarwar P.Ws. Also suffered injuries.
3. After the investigation of the case the challan was submitted in the Court of learned Sessions Judge who entrusted the same to Mr. Sabah Mohiud-Din, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. One Barkat Ali, a relative of petitioner (accused in the murder case) filed a private complaint against Ghulam Rasool, complainant and others under sections 307, 148, 149, P.P.C. Which was a counter- version of the same occurrence. This complaint was also sent up to the Court of Session and was entrusted to the same learned Additional Sessions Judge. When the preliminary evidence was being recorded in the complaint case the learned Additional Sessions Judge was promoted as Sessions Judge and on an application submitted by the complainant to my Lord the learned Chief Justice for early disposal, the trial of this case was entrusted to Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore under the orders of the learned Chief Justice.
' Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the complaint vide his detailed order dated 29-9-1992 and forwarded the challan to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore for transmitting the same to this Court for the entrustment of the trial to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Acting Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31-8-1992 refused to refer the case to this Court as desired by the learned trial Court on the ground that the complaint case and the challan case regarding the same occurrence should be heard and decided by the same Court. He also made mention in his order that the entrustment of this case has been made to Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge by the Honourable Chief Justice so no ground for reference was made out.
3-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Duty Sessions Judge, had no authority in law to give his own findings and to refuse to refer the case to this Honourable Court when the trial Court had itself observed that he expressed his opinion in the complaint case so in the interest of justice the challan case should be tried and disposed of by some other Court. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Judge could not review or override the observation of the learned trial Judge when he had himself decided the case which was a counter-version of the challan case and expressed his opinion over the whole occurrence.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General did not repel the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and rather he conceded that the learned Sessions Judge should not have refused the reference seeking the entrustment by this Court of the challan case to any other trial Court.
5. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have also gone through the record very minutely. I find that the entrustment of the above-noted case was made by the orders of the Honourable Chief Justice but the situation which developed after the dismissal of the private complaint filed by the accused against the complainant through a detailed judgment and the trial Court itself making reference seeking the transfer of the challan case from its Court for entrustment of the same to any other Court should have been brought to the notice of the Honourable Chief Justice as the trial Court was nominated by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge while refusing the reference gave a finding that the complaint case as well as the challan case regarding the same occurrence should be heard and decided by the same Court. While giving this finding the learned Sessions Judge could not appreciate that the complaint case had been dismissed by the learned trial Court through a detailed judgment relating to the same occurrence so it was only the challan case which was pending adjudication. The learned AA.-G. Also agreed with the legal position in a case reported as Balu and others v. Emperor AIR 1934 Lah. 458 and in a case reported as Banappa Kallappa Ajawan and others v. Emperor AIR 1944 Born. 146 that where there are cross-cases the Court should dispose of those together. If opinion in one case is expressed then there is a reasonable apprehension to the accused that their case had been prejudged so the transfer should be ordered in such a situation.
6. The revision petition is allowed and the order dated 31-8-1992 of the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore is set aside with the direction that he should forward the reference to the Honourable Chief Justice for passing some appropriate orders.
Revision .