' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, C.J.---Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan and the other petitioners have by this revision petition challenged two orders of the learned Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Lahore made on 9-2-1994 and 28-2-1994 respectively.
2. The brief facts are that on receipt of secret information, Owais Sadiq S.H.O Police Station Faisal Town carried out a raid on Bangalow No,408, Block 'IC Mama Iqbal Town Lahore at 0230 hours on the night of 28-7-1992. He found the petitioners and some other persons, both male and female, present in a room of the said house in nude and dancing on the rhythm of a Tape Recorder. Some currency notes were also being thrown by them on each other. The said S.H.O arrested all the persons and sent Murasila at 0330 hours at night to the. Police Station Faisal Town Lahore for registration of the case. In the F.I.R the culprits were charged under sections 10, 11 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
3. After investigation all the culprits were sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Lahore where the Public Prosecutor submitted an application on 13-1-1994 under section 494 Cr.P.0 for withdrawal of the State from the prosecution of the petitioners. However, the said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 9-2-1994.
4. Thereafter the case was sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge Lahore where the petitioners submitted an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. On 28-2-1994 but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order written in urdu on the same day.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The S.H.O. Concerned had not obtained any search warrant for carrying out any raid on the premises. Since he had to carry out search of a premises he had also not associated two respectable persons of the locality and had thus violated the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. As well. He had committed grave illegality in respect of both these aspects. Even if it is believed that the culprits were found in nude, it is not known whether they had committed any offence of the nature for which they had been charged in the F.I.R.
6. The most important point is that the State had withdrawn from the prosecution of the petitioners and although the request had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge yet still the State could decline to produce any evidence in which case what would have been on the record to sustain any charge against the petitioners and what would have been the fate of the case. In the circumstances the best course open to the learned sessions Judge and Additional 'Sessions Judge Lahore was to accept the request of the Public Prosecutor made under section 494, Cr.P.C. Or of the application of the petitioners moved under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
7. For the aforesaid reasons we have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose will be served if the trial had continued because in the event of non-production of any evidence the learned trial Court would have been left with no other alternative except to acquit the petitioners. We, therefore, accept the revision petition in hand, set aside both the aforesaid impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Lahore and accepting the application of the learned Public Prosecutor made under section 494, Cr.P.C. We allow the State to withdraw from the prosecution of the petitioners and they stand acquitted of the charges for which they were to be tried.
Revision .