' The present criminal revision petition calls into question the legality and propriety of the judgment, dated 25-5-1992, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, while dismissing the complaint filed by the, petitioner, had acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 3 of the charges under section 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts leading to the present criminal revision petition are that the petitioner filed a private complaint alleging that he had a dispute with Muhammad Saeed deceased (respondent No,4) over Killas Nos.4, 7, 14, 17 and 24; and similarly he alongwith one Muhammad Shall had a dispute with respondents Nos.1 and 2 over Killas Nos.5, 6, 15, 16 and 25. The said disputes were set at rest in favour of the petitioner and Muhammad Shafi firstly by the Tehsildar, Sargodha, and then in appeal, by the Collector, Sargodha, on 24-4-1991, as a result of which the possession of the disputed property was delivered to them as a gesture of goodwill by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4. In consequence of the delivery of possession, the complainant appointed Nazar Hussain, his son-in- law, as supervisor of the erstwhile disputed property and the complainant himself started residing with Muhammad Shafi temporarily. Jahan Khan, son of the complainant, was a bus driver and was residing in Sahiwal. At night between 27th and 28th April, 1991, when Nazar Hussain was sleeping in his Kotha situated in Killa No,7, Square No,15, the complainant alongwith Muhammad Shari, heard the gun report, went running, and saw Muhammad Amir, Zafar Iqbal and Muhammad Aslam (respondents Nos:1 to 3) armed with guns, Muhammad Saeed deceased (respondent No,4) armed with carbine and Muhammad Iqbal deceased (respondent No,5) armed with gun, firing at Nazar Hussain. They had opened this attack to get possession from Nazar Hussain. On the other hand, Nazar Hussain, exercising his right of self-defence, had also opened fire. In this indiscriminate firing Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Iqbal (respondents Nos.4 and 5) were injured, whereas Nazar Hussain, son-in-law of the petitioner, died on being hit by the shot fired by Muhammad Amir respondent No,1. Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Iqbal (respondents Nos.4 and 5) also succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner and Muhammad Shafi had recognized the assailants in moonlit night with the help of torches.
' The motive behind this occurrence, as stated in the complaint, was that the respondents, after handing over the possession to the complainant party, intended to get it back. The petitioner reported the matter at Police Station Jhal Chakian, but the police, to utter disregard of the actual facts, registered a case F.I.R. No,135 under section 302/34, P.P.C. On the basis of the statement of Muhammad Amir respondent No,1, against Jahan Khan, Muhammad Shall and others and did not register any separate case for the murder of Nazar Hussain.
3. To prove his case, the complainant appeared as P.W.1 and produced Muhammad Shad as P.W.2.
However, the learned trial Court, after taking into consideration all the evidence on the record, found the respondents innocent and had acquitted them as stated above.
4. To support the present criminal revision petition, the learned counsel argued that the dismissal of the complaint in question by the impugned order dated 25-5-1992 was not sustainable in law, as the learned trial Court had examined only two witnesses out of the ten mentioned, and that the denial of an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of version of the complainant was illegal.
Further argued that the learned trial Court had passed the impuged order in haste by ignoring the material evidence on the record and that the learned trial Court had erred in law in not taking into consideration the postmortem report and in not summoning for examination the Medical Officer, who had conducted the same. Further argued that the learned trial Court had committed an illegality by not referring the complaint for inquiry to the Magistrate in accordance with law.
5. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions raised, but failed to find any merit therein. The complaint in question was filed before the learned trial Court by the complainant/petitioner, Sher Zaman, and the learned trial Court was competent to dismiss the said complaint under the provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C. The said section is being reproduced here for reference:-- "203. (The Court) before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred (or sent) may dismiss the complaint, if (after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the result of (the investigation) or inquiry (if any) under section 202) there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such cases he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."
The learned trial Court had stated very cogent reasons for dismissing the complaint in the order impugned, and the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to deal with the same in any manner.
Furthermore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the complainant to produce his evidence is belied from the record as the complainant had closed his evidence on 16-5-1992, after having recorded his own statement on 4- 5-1992 and after the only witness produced by him, namely, Muhammad Shafi's statement had been recorded on 16-5-1992. The statement of the petitioner, by which he had closed his evidence, is as follows: Therefore, the present criminal revision petition, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed.
Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.