' This revision petition is 'directed against the order, dated 12-3-1997 passed by Mr. Afzaal Hussain Kazmi, learned Additionar Sessions Judge, Narowal, whereby, the petitioner and two others were summoned in a private complaint filed by respondent No,1 under section 336/337-A(ii)/324/34, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts are that a case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Qila Sobha Singh vide F.I.R. No,94, dated 9-12-1993 at the instance of one Muhammad Sharif against Irshad and two others. A private complaint under section 336/337-A(ii)/324/34, P.P.C. Was filed by Khan Muhammad i,e,; present respondent No,1 against the present petitioner and others regarding the same occurrence in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Narowal who forwarded the same to the Sessions Judge, Narowal for entrusting it to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The same was entrusted to the Magistrate Section 30, Narowal by the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal. The transferee Court dismissed the complaint after holding preliminary enquiry, whereupon, a revision petition was filed which was accepted by Mr. Muhammad Haneef Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide his judgment, dated 17-1-1996. The order, dated 3-11-1994 passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Narowal was set aside and a direction was made that the complaint be forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal because the sanie was triable in the Court of Session, assumably because the case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. As referred to above regarding the same occurrence was also pending there. The learned Sessions Judge, thereupon entrusted the complaint to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who forwarded the same to the Magistrate for enquiry under section 302, Cr.P.C. And to submit a report accordingly.
The learned Magistrate vide his order, dated 2-1-1997 came to the conclusion that the complainant had miserably failed to make out a prima facie good case warranting the summoning of the accused to face trial under section 324/336/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. And as such submitted the report accordingly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the aforesaid report and taking into account the evidence brought on record during the preliminary enquiry came to the conclusion vide his observations made in paragraph No,3 of the impugned order that there was a prima facie good case worth of judicial test against the petitioner and his accomplices.
Accordingly, they were directed to be summoned as accused through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,25,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved. Of the foregoing order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision petition was filed on the grounds that since the petitioner and his accomplices were not heard before making the impugned order, therefore, the order was bad in the eye of law; that the offences mentioned in the private complaint were triable by a Court of Magistrate Section 30 and not by a Court of Session till the complaint was sent up by the Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in section 193, Cr.P.C., and since the same was not sent up, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell in error to make the impugned order. Reliance is placed on 1996 PCr.LJ 1818 Karachi. Lastly, it was contended that the enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. Clearly revealed that there was no evidence justifying the summoning of the petitioner or his accomplices.
As such, it was urged that the impugned order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent and the State contended that it was not necessary to associate or to hear the accused in an enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. And as such, there was no irregularity if the accused were not heard before the impugned order was passed. Reliance was placed on 1995 PCr.LJ 14 Lahore and 1995 PCr.LJ 530 Lahore. Secondly, it was contended that there was no bar if the connected case contained in the private complaint was sent up to the Court of Session for trial by the learned Sessions Judge as the occurrence ensued from the same occurrence which resulted into murder for which a case under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered. In this regard, it was contended that such connected cases according to the established practice have to be heard and disposed of simultaneously by the same Court. Reliance was placed on PLD 1962 Dacca 576 and 1973 SCM R 134. Lastly, it was contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly differed from the learned enquiry Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there was a prima facie good case worth of Trial. This being a question of fact cannot be interfered in the revision petition.
5. I have considered the contentions raised at the Bar from both the sides. First of all, it is to be pointed out that the order, dated 17-1-1996 passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal whereby, the revision was accepted and the order of the Magistrate was set aside and the direction that the complaint be forwarded to the Court of Session, was never challenged till today by the petitioner. It was on the basis of the aforesaid order that the rest of the proceedings had taken place culminating in the impugned order, dated 12-3-1997. Apart from that, it cannot be successfully urged that since the case was not sent up to the Court of Session, therefore, cognizance of the private complaint could not be taken up. It was in pursuance of the order, dated 17-1-1996 that the matter was required to be sent up to the Court of Session for trial with the connected case. In that situation, the cognizance taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby, he had directed an enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. To be conducted by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Narowal did not suffer from any illegality. Even otherwise, it is a common practice having matured into a rule that if there are two versions about the same occurrence then both the versions are to be tried and decided by one and the same Court. In pursuance of that rule, the cognizance was taken for trial of the private complaint alongwith the murder case and as such, there was no irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted as aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal has given sound reasons in the impugned judgment to come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to justify the existence of a prima facie case worth of judicial test against the petitioner and his accomplices and as such, they were rightly summoned through bailable warrants. Hence, there is no illegality nor there is any legal flaw regarding the exercise of authority or jurisdiction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal so as to call for interference with the impugned order on the revision side of this Court.
6. The revision petition being meritless is dismissed accordingly.
Revision .