' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-2-1999 (wrongly written as order dated 23-2-1999), whereby, the petitioners have been summoned by the learned trial Judge in the light of the statement of P.W. 1 in which both of them have been attributed a ,specific role in the commission of murder of the deceased.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on two grounds. The first ground is that the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 was only recorded which would not be considered a complete statement in the eyes of law as held in PLD 1986 Lahore 256 (Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Qudrat Ullah Ruddy and others) and PLD 1983 Supreme Court 291 (Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar, Advocate v. The State through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad).
As such, the learned trial Judge was not allegedly competent to summon the accused persons who were placed in column No, 2 only on the basis of incomplete statement. The second ground urged against the impugned order was that the complainant had filed a complaint in which both the petitioners were nominated as accused but later on, the same was withdrawn for which there was no provision; of law that ,a Sessions Court may follow such withdrawal. Hence, after the withdrawal and the dismissal of the complaint against the petitioners, there was no ground to summon them to face the trial.
3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that a case under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Was registered against the petitioners and their brother namely Awais Pirzada for committing the murder of the deceased Rashid Ahmad i,e, brother of the complainant. During the investigation, the present petitioners were found innocent, whereupon, the complainant feeling aggrieved filed a complaint in which the present petitioners were cited as respondents and were summoned vide order, dated 25-9-1998. However, later on the aforesaid complaint. Was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 15-12-1998 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (trial Court) on the basis of the statement made by the complainant Jaan Muhammad that since both the petitioners had been placed in. Column No, 2 of the challan, therefore, there was no necessity to proceed )with the complaint. It is, thereafter that vide the impugned order, the petitioners were summoned.
4. It is to be seen whether the order passed by the learned trial Judge summoning the petitioners to face the trial is illegal, without jurisdiction or palpably wrong in the eyes of law. In this respect, though the learned trial Judge had taken into consideration the incomplete statement of the complainant when he appeared as P.W. 1 at the trial and decided to summon the present petitioners but the fact remains that both the petitioners have been placed in Column. No, 2 of the challan and sent to the Court concerned for trial. .The perusal of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Also shows that the present petitioners were sent up to face the trial and were left to the discretion of the Court to be dealt ,with in accordance with law...II is, thus, clear that the petitioners have been sent-up to face the trial at the discretion of the Con, which has been exercised by the trial Court after taking into consideration the examination-in-chief of the complainant i,e, P.W.
1., It is true, that the examination-in chief would be considered as incomplete statement but that would become complete after the cross-examination has been conducted which has' been reserved by the defence at the moment. There 'is nothing wrong with the order of the learned trial Judge particularly when the police has also sent -the' petitioners to face their trial under section 302/34, P.P.C. By placing them in colunui No, 2 along with the third accused Awais Pirzada who has been placed in Column No,3.
5. In such a situation, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge in summoning both the petitioners does, not appear to be illegal, perverse, arbitrary or without ,jurisdiction sou as to case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine with the observation that the petitioners may invoke any other appropriate remedy if no case is made out against them at any stage of the trial.