CH. IJAZ AHMAD, .J- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises, are that the petitioners were involved in case FIR No. 106/96. Dated 29.6.1996 under Section 302 34 Pakistan Penal Code in Police Station Qaimpur District. Bahawalpur. The Police Officers who investigated this case including to DSPs declared the petitioners to be innocent and the petitioners were not even arrested. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 9.10.1996 issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, hence the petitioners aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, tiled this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrants of the petitioners without applying his mind, arbitrarily. Mechanically and without recording their ev idence, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without lawful authority. He relied upon Arshad Ali Shah v. Saeed Muhammad Ashraf and another 11996 P.Cr.L.J. (Lahore) 1673. S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another (1991 MLR (Quetta) 1977) and Haji Muhammad Aslam v. The State (NLR 1986 (Criminal) 144). The learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioners were declared innocent by the Investigating Agency but they were not discharged by the competent Court, therefore, the non-bailable warrants were properly issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the criminal revision petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He relied upon Riasat Ali The Stare and another I PLD 1993 Lahore 105). Muhammad Sharif and 2 others v. The State and another (1994 SC.MR 688).
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact on the record that the petitioners were declared innocent by the Investigating Agency and the petitioners were also mentioned in column No. 2 of the final challan submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent Court. It is also admitted fact on the record that the petitioners were not. Discharged by the competent Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgments of the High Court whereas the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are Supreme Court Judgments which are binding on this Court. The Supreme Court laid down a principle in Waqarul Haq alias Mithoo and another v. The State 11988 SC.MR 1428> to the follow ing effect:- "The contention is that first evidence should be recorded and if in the light of such evidence the trial Court deems it proper to summon them only then they may be summoned. The point involved in this case is that three persons have been accused of the offence out of which one Muhammad Rafiq was placed in column No. 3 whereas the present petitioners were placed in column No. 2. The accused person whose name appears in column No. 2 of the challan can be summoned by the trial Court directly to stand the trial and it is not necessary that first some evidence should be recorded. In the present case the challan against the petitioners had not been cancelled by placing them in column No. 2. It only meant that according to the police investigation they were found innocent, and therefore, they were discharged under Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. However, it does not mean that they would not be summoned to stand trial by the Sessions Court in that view of the matter we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed".
4. The controversy between the parties fully answered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-mentioned case. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan Criminal Revision has no force, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.