' The petitioners seek revision and reversal of order dated 1-4-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, ANF, Multan whereby an application under section 265-K, Cr. P.0 moved by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Notice was given to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent who appeared and arguments have been heard at length.
3. The learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were falsely and maliciously involved in case F.I.R. No,50 of 1998 under section 9-C/15 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 by Police Station ANF Multan on drug related charges. Petitioner No,1 through his brother Muhammad Hayat Khan having failed to solicit justice against administrative tyranny of such magnitude from the Anti-Narcotics Authorities was constrained to seek vindication of his grievance in the Constitutional jurisdiction vide W.P. No, 9297 of 1998 in which judicial inquiry, was directed vide order dated 23-10-1998 and in his report dated 11-11-1998, the Illaqa Magistrate concluded as under:-- ' "I on the basis of evidence, discrepancies pointed out in para. No, 8 of this report, and secret investigation carried out by me alongwith my Ahlmad and Naib-Court, particularly, keeping in view the statements of Shaukat Ali, Shakir Ali and Abbas Ali can very safely say that raid shown by the ANF near the dry port is forged, fake and false. I am satisfied by my conscience to say that the place of recovery shown by the ANF is not the place, where any recovery of Chars took place. The defence of involvement of the accused persons on the instance of Major Azamat Ullah Khan Niazi is also weighty. There is sufficient material to form a view that accused persons are falsely involved in the case."
' Thereafter, the matter was sent to the learned trial Court where the petitioner moved an application under section 265-K, Cr. P.0 which has been dismissed by equating the police report with the judicial inquiry and by holding that the witnesses in both the two proceedings had to be subjected to cross-examination by either side before the matter could be decided one way or the other. It ha further been urged that all the witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the judicial inquiry and nothing was left and that to put the petitioners to trial would cause persecution and irreparable damage to their reputation.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent ha submitted that all the witnesses have not been examined by the Magistrate who conducted the inquiry. He especially referred to the witnesses of recovery to huge quantity of the crime drug.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the sides. In a revision petition, three things are to be seen: (i). Propriety; (ii). Correctness; and (iii) Legality of an order.
' A specific question was put by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioners to address arguments on these three points but he could not satisfy the Court as to how the order was incorrect, improper or illegal. The matter is sub judice after submission of challan before the learned trial Court which had got every right to decide the application under section 265-K, Cr. P.0 within its discretion and its reasons that the inquiry report is simply a piece of evidence collected by the Inquiry Officer in favour of the accused just like what the Investigating Officer has collected the evidence in favour of the prosecution and that both the collections of evidence need proper thrash during trial by the trial Court in order to determine that what is right and what is wrong for which both the parties are required to produce their evidence for just conclusion of the case, cannot be said to be incorrect by any standard; especially when the two important recovery witnesses were not examined by the Inquiry Officer. In such circumstances it can also not be said that the order was not proper. If the Judicial inquiry is to be given such importance as the learned counsel for the petitioners submits, the whole purpose of investigation and trial will be set at naught. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to PLD 1968 SC 281, 1998 SCM R 666 and 1996 SCM R 24. There is no cavil with the propositions laid down in, the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan but the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand are totally different from them.
' Resultantly, the revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Revistion .