' Muhammad Aslam respondent No,1 filed the complaint for the prosecution of the petitioners- accused under sections 324, 337-A(i), (ii), 337-F (i), (ii)/148/149/109, P.P.C. In the Court of Rai Zafar Abbas, Magistrate Section 30, Hafizabad (respondent No,2). The preliminary statement of Muhammad Aslam complainant-respondent No,1 as well as the preliminary statements of Muhammad Ishaque P.W.2, Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, Saif Ullah P.W.4, Muhammad Pannah P.W.5 and Jahangir P.W.6 have been recorded which are in the hand of the Reader of the Court and have been signed by the aforesaid Magistrate Section 30, Hafizabad. Expressing that the evidence could not be recorded by the Reader of the Court and that there being no certificate about the reason of inability of the trial Magistrate to record the statements of the P.Ws. The petitioners-accused have filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for the quashment of the proceedings conducted by the Trial Court. This petition has been resisted by Muhammad Aslam respondent No,1-complainant.
2. On 26-3-1997 M. Dawood Ahmad, Reader of the trial Court appeared when he as well as the learned counsel for Muhammad Aslam respondent No,1 admitted that the preliminary evidence was written by the previous Reader of the Court and was not in the hand of the learned Magistrate.
A perusal of the record has made out that the trial Magistrate did not record the reason of his inability in the matter of scribing the preliminary statements of the P.Ws.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record before me. Relying on Munshi Ahmad and others v. Maulvi Abdul Hannan 1987 PCr.LJ 2299 (Lahore) and Tahir Javed and others v. Abdur Razzaq and others PLD 1995 Lah. 261 learned counsel for the petitioners-accused argued that the evidence recorded by the Reader of the Court could not form the basis of the summoning of the petitioners as the accused. On the contrary learned counsel for Muhammad Aslam respondent No, 1/complainant laid the emphasis that the preliminary statements of the complainant and the P.Ws. Could be recorded by the Reader of the Court as there is no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard and that section 355(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood attracted when the fullfledged trial was under process after formulation of the charge. In my view the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to prevail and the aforesaid rulings relied upon by him are applicable to the instant matter. I would express that the fact of the matter is that a Reader of the Court cannot assume the role of a Magistrate exercising powers of any class. The justice has to be administered by the Presiding Officer of the Court and in whole of the Scheme of the Criminal Procedural Law the Reader has not been directly empowered to record the statements of the P.Ws. Or to write/announce the judgment etc. Etc. Muss fuss is emanating about the poor working of the subordinate Courts. It is alleged that in the absence of the Presiding Officers the evidence is recorded by the Readers. There is no material on the record to make out in the instant matter that preliminary evidence was recorded under the supervision of the Presiding 1 C Officer. Unfortunately the trend of such type of working is increasing alarmingly and it has laid down the foundation of injustice in most of the subordinate Courts. Finding support from the aforesaid wealth of the case- law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners which pertains to the working of the Trial Court at the initial stage of the recording of the preliminary evidence, I hold that the preliminary proceedings and the impugned order about the summoning of the petitioners as the accused are illegal and without lawful authority. Such an illegal working of the trial Court is not even curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
4. For what has been said above, I accept this criminal miscellaneous petition, declare the proceedings conducted by the Trial Court as without lawful authority and illegal, set aside the impugned order, dated 19-2-1996 summoning the petitioner as the accused and remand the case to the Area Magistrate to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law who shall record the preliminary statements of the complainant and the P.Ws. With his own hand and shall proceed further in accordance with law.
5. Muhammad Aslam respondent No, 1/complainant shall appear before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 2- 10-1997 so that the matter is taken up by him on that date. In case the judicial file is not with the present Ilaqa Magistrate the same stands transferred to his Court who shall proceed further after procuring the same from the Court where it is lying.