' This criminal revision has been filed to assail the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bahawalnagar dated 25-5-1991 whereby a private complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant Niaz Ahmad was dismissed.
2. Complainant/petitioner Niaz Ahmad on 24-2-1991 filed a private complaint against the respondents under section 302/109, P.P.C. Before the Ilaqa Magistrate which was sent to the learned Sessions Judge as the offences under section 302/109, P.P.C. Were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
3. The learned Sessions Judge entrusted the private complaint to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II who recorded preliminary evidence petitioner complainant Niaz Ahmad (P.W.1), P.W.2 Ghulam Ali, P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.4, Goma and P.W.5 Ghulam Muhammad. The petitioner also submitted Exhs.PA. To P.J. i,e. Copy of report under section 173, Cr.P.C., inquest report, F.I.R. Site plan, post-mortem report, injury statement, report of Chemical Examiner and Serologist and Nikahnama and closed his preliminary evidence. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge pronounced the impugned judgment.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie a case was made out from the evidence on record and the impugned judgment is not warranted by law.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel and have perused the record. The petitioner had lodged case F.I.R. No,141 of 1989 on 26-7-1989 at Police Station Doonga Boonga, District Bahawalnagar. The case was investigated by the police and also by the Inspector, C.I.A. On the orders of the S.P., and Muhammad Munawar Inspector, C.IA. And again on the application of the complainant/ petitioner the investigation was transferred to Syed Abdul Rehman, Inspector, C.IA. The Investigating Officers had investigated the case, recorded the statements of P.Ws., respectables of the locality and thereafter challaned Allah Rakha alias Rakhi and Noor Samand respondents. A report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted by the Inspector/S.H.O. On 8-5-1990 and the same was forwarded by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Sadar Bahawalnagar on 29-5- 1990. The challan was submitted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-H, Bahawalnagar.
5. The petitioner/complainant on 24-2-1991 filed a private complaint against the respondents and after recording the preliminary evidence of five prosecution witnesses, the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 25-5-1991. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the night between 25/26-7-1989. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted by the S.H.O.
On 8-5-1990 and the same was forwarded by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. On 29-5-1990. The complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents after a lapse of one year and six months. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case was not registered in accordance with the narration of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that on different applications of the complainant/petitioner the investigation was transferred to different Investigating Officers by the S.P., Bahawalnagar and the petitioner/complainant never complained against the local police before him and on the other hand joined the investigation on each and every occasion. No plausible explanation of filing a delayed complaint was given by the complainant in the complaint as well as before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of recording of his statement. The challan has already been submitted against Allah Rakha alias Rakhi and Noor Samand alias Noori, respondents after unanimous finding about their guilt by three Investigating Officers.
6. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petition has no force which is dismissed.
Revision .