' On 26-10-1988 a consent order was passed by this Court in Lal Khan v. Additional District Judge etc. (Writ Petition No,1445 of 1988) saying that the trial of the case (F.I.R. No,119, dated 20-8-1983 Police Station Phalia) registered on the statement of the petitioner shall be concluded within one month without fail. However, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant/present petitioner did not produce the doctor and the Investigating Officer in support of his case. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused on 31-1-1989 vide his order Annexure "B".
Against the said order a revision petition was filed by the petitioner which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15-1-1990.
2., Sardar Roshan Ali Sindhu learned counsel for the petitioner contends with vehemence that it was the duty of the learned trial Magistrate to have procured the attendance of the prosecution witnesses by adopting coercive measures. According to him no such coercive measures were taken by the learned trial Magistrate for procuring the presence of the said witnesses.
3. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, learned counsel for the acquitted accused vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that no writ can be issued in aid of injustice inasmuch as the accused were acquitted by the competent Court of law for lack of evidence. He further says that to begin with both the parties were acquitted and that the petitioner challenge the acquittal of the accused while the respondents-accused did not challenge the acquittal of the present petitioner Lal Khan in their case. He therefore, argues that equity would demand that no writ should be issued in aid of a person like the petitioner. He relies upon Nawab Ronaq All v. The State PLD 1973 SC 236. It is argued that in case of acquittal no order of remand should be passed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. I have also read the record with care. Without touching the merits of the case, I am of the view that the learned trial Magistrate was not helpless in the matter inasmuch as he could issue non-bailable warrants for the attendance of the witnesses who did not appear before him for deposing the evidence against the accused. The authority cited by the learned counsel would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. It was observed by their Lordships in the said authority that-- "the object of certiorari and mandamus is to foster justice and right a wrong."
In my view a wrong has been done to the petitioner by the Courts below by not summoning the witnesses. This being so this wrong can be cured in the interest of justice. In the circumstances, a direction shall issue to the learned trial Magistrate to issue bailable warrants for procuring the attendance of the remaining prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Magistrate shall conclude the trial of the accused within one month from the receipt of this order. The petitioner/complainant shall also render assistance to the trial Court in the matter. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed.