Manzoor Ahmad petitioner/complainant filed this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
Against the order, dated 28-3-1995 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal ordered the issuance of bailable warrants of arrest of Allah Ditta, Kali and Sarwar co-accused of respondents Ahmad, Yar, Aalam Sher and Chakar and allegedly did not appreciate the evidence of the petitioner and declined to summon Ahmad Yar, Aalam Sher and Chakar---respondents Nos. l to 3.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this revision petition, are that petitioner Manzoor Ahmad got registered a case F.I.R. No.364/94 under sections 302/109, 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal against respondents Nos. l to 3 and other co-accused namely Allah Ditta, Kali and Sarwar. During the investigation except Ali Sher and Kali, all the accused were declared innocent and being aggrieved, petitioner tiled a complaint against the accused named in the F.I.R.
And the complaint was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge who recorded the preliminary evidence of the petitioner/complainant, Dr. Hameed, Bashir Haider, Fareed, Wali Muhammad, Pehlwan, Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Ameen, Head Constable. At the close of the preliminary evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order on 28-3- 1995 and summoned Allah Ditta, Kali and Sarwar only through bailable warrants of arrest to face the charges levelled against them in the complaint. This order was challenged through this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Court completely supported the version given in the F.I.R. And prima facie there existed reasonable grounds to proceed against respondents Ahmad Yar, Aalam Sher and Chakar.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that they were found innocent during the investigation and there is no possibility of the conviction of the petitioners for any offence and the trial against the petitioner would be sheer wastage of the precious time of the Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record annexed with this petition.
6. To better appreciate the contention raised by the parties, the impugned order is reproduced as under:--- "Present Complainant with his counsel.
As per cursory statements of Marizoor Ahmed, Dr. Hamid, Bashir Haider, Fareed, Wali Muhammad, Pehlwan, Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Amin, H.C. 767, copy of F.I.R. And other documentary evidence on record, Allah Ditta, Kali and Sarwar are prima facie accused of offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs.30,000. Each with one surety each in the like amount be issued against them for 13-4-1995.
Announced.
Dated 28-3-1995.(Abdul Ghaffar Khan), Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal
7. The bare reading of the impugned order transpires that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal did not at all discuss whether he is summoning the respondents to face trial or has decided to refuse to summon them. Presumably the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has refused to summon the respondents Nos. l to 3 to face the trial but fact remained that he has not given any reason whatsoever for not summoning the respondents to face the trial. He has also not discussed merits of the case tentatively to justify the impugned order qua respondents Nos. l to 3. By no stretch of imagination, the impugned order can be termed as a speaking order. Orders passed under section 203/204, Cr.P.C. Are judicial orders, which are subject to the scrutiny by the superior Courts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was required under section 203, Cr.P.C. To hold that in his judgment there existed no sufficient grounds for proceeding against respondents Nos.1 to 3.
In such a case he was required to briefly record his reasons for so doing. Section 203, Cr.P.C.
Provides:--- "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."
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any reason whatsoever for not summoning the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and he has not described that in his judgment no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents existed.
9. For what has been stated above, it is held that the impugned order dated 28-3-1995 is illegal, improper arid incorrect qua respondents Nos. l to 3. The revision petition is accepted and the learned trial Judge is directed to pass a fresh speaking order keeping in view the observations made above and tile law on the subject. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal or his successor, for compliance.
10. This petition stands disposed of.