1. HAMOODURRAHMAN, C. J. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 15-7-66 under sections 416. And 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Disbursing Officer, Compensation Office, Noakhali. The allegation against him was that he had practiced a fraud upon the complainant by forging the signature of a member of a Union Council on a mutation petition and bill---cum- acquittance roll in respect of certain compensation standing in the name of one, Raj Mohan Majumder, and drawn the said compensation by identifying an unknown person as the heir of the said Raj Mohan Majumder.
2. Warrant of arrest was issued on the basis of this complaint and the trial proceeded, but it dragged on till the 28th February 1968, when only two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
3. They denied that they had any knowledge about the alleged incident. Then on the 29th March 1968, another witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He too pleaded ignorance about the incident. The next date of hearing was the 20th of April 1968. On this date the complainant was absent without any petition for adjournment. So no further date was given and the accused was discharged under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. ' Some six months later on the 10th of October 1968, the District Magistrate of Noakhali was moved in revision for setting aside the order of discharge. He set aside the order on the 10 of December 1968, and directed further enquiry.
5. The petitioner moved the High Court on its revisional side but a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revisional application. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the' first point urged on his behalf is that the District Magistrate had entertained this time-barredth revisional application under a total misconception of law, as he had relied on a Sind Chief Court rule for the of holding that the `time limit for filing a revision application was six months.
6. It is no doubt correct that the District Magistrate had misconceived the situation in applying the Sind Chief Court rule, for, so far as East Pakistan is concerned, no definite period of limitation has been prescribed. As a matter of practice revision applications are not entertained if they are filed beyond the period prescribed for filing a criminal appeal.
7. However, in a suitable case, the Court has the power to entertain revision applications even beyond this period of time. The High Court has, accordingly, taken the view that the District Magistrate had condoned the delay and exercised this discretion. It cannot be said that the High Court was not justified in taking this view.
8. The next contention of the learned Advocate is that the District Magistrate was incompetent to hear the revision, as he himself had endorsed the complaint, but on looking at the first order in the order-sheet it appears that it was not the District Magistrate but the Deputy Collector who had endorsed the complaint. The learned counsel was no doubt misled by the fact that in a subsequent order the Magistrate concerned had stated that the complaint was endorsed by the learned D. C.
9. This was obviously wrong.'
10. Learned counsel has also contended that the way in which the prosecution is being conducted is nothing short of harassm ent, for, they had no evidence in their possession. The petitioner has now been harassed for nearly four years by these proceedings and he should not be harassed any further.
11. If there is no evidence against the petitioner, it would be to his interest to get a clean acquittal. On the other hand, if there is evidence, it is desirable that the trial should proceed. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for interference. The objections raised are purely technical. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but the Magistrate concerned is directed to take expeditious steps to dispose of the case as early as possible.