MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Ashiq Ali Shujra petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Federal Shariat Court dated 5-8-1993 whereby allowing the revision petition of the complainant/respondent against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his complaint under sections 6, 10 and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd Ordinances 1979, the case was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law.
2. The revision petition was disposed of by a short order, apparently passed in haste, which reads as under:-- "Complainant Muhammad Ali petitioner herein had filed a complaint against Ashiq Hussain Shujra accused/respondent under section 6/10/11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd)
Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of Sessions Judge, . Multati which wis entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Mansoor Ali Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan for disposal. The learned trial Judge recorded preliminary statement of the complainant/petitioner and his to witnesses, but thereafter, dismissed the complaint by order dated 10-12-1992 which has been impugned before us in the revision petition in hand.
(2) We have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
(3) P.W. Nazar Muhammad and P.W.3 Mansoor Hussain had both stated in their preliminary evidence that the accused/respondent had called the complainant/petitioner as a ' Zani' .
(4) Without going into further merits of the case we are of the opinion that prima facie there was material to proceed with the complaint on merit and it should not have been summarily dismissed.
(5) Consequently we accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, dated 10th December, 1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and remand the case back to him with the direction that he shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and then finally dispose it of."
3. We have carefully gone through the record. In the complaint it has been stated that the petitioner had levelled an allegation that the complainant had suffered stripes on his naked buttocks and this punishment was awarded to him under the "Zina Ordinance".
4. The case of the petitioner is that he had never levelled any allegation of Zina against the complainant and if for the sake of argument it is accepted that he had made the allegation mentioned in the complaint, it does not amount to imputation of Zina because Zina is not the only offence made punishable under Ordinance VII of 1979 but a number of other offences like abduction and kidnapping with a particular intent are also covered.
It is submitted that since the complaint does not disclose that any allegation of Zina was made by the petitioner against the respondent nor the complainant had so alleged in his statement before the trial Court, therefore, any improvement by his witnesses subsequently will not advance the case and the complaint was rightly dismissed. There is substance in the contention. Leave to appeal is granted. Proceedings before the trial Court are stayed meanwhile.