' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is ' directed against order, dated 6-10-1998 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No,370 of 1998.
2. Brief facts are that on 8th March, 1997, F.I.R. No,77 of 1997 was lodged under sections 302 and 337, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar, Okara. After completion of investigation by concerned police towards 10th July, 1997 submitted challan before Sessions Judge, Okara, against accused Usman son of Irshad Khan. Whereas eight accused namely, Taj Khan, Irshad Khan, Amin Khan, Waris Khan (petitioner herein), Suhrab Khan, Muhammad Sharif, Nasir Khan and Liaqat Ali were placed in Column No,2 of the challan. On 6-10-1997 when case came up for hearing before Sessions Judge, Okara, he on the perusal of F.I.R. And report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case and sufficient grounds directed issuance of process against aforementioned eight accused who. Were placed in Column No,2.
3. It may be seen that Muhammad Sharif and others filed Criminal Revision No,391 of 1997 challenging above order, whereby the accused had been summoned. Relying on the principle enunciated in Waqarul Haq v. State (1998 SCMR 1428) learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court rejected their Criminal Revision vide order, dated 28-7-1998. Subsequently on 26-9-1998 petitioners herein, filed Criminal Revision No,370 of 1998 before Lahore High Court wherein it was pleaded that trial Court in all propriety should have examined some evidence before summoning the petitioners. However, on the basis of earlier order passed in Petition No,391 of 1997 the Criminal Revision No,370 of 1998 was dismissed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court vide order dated 6-10-1998. Relevant observations are reproduced below:-- "Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners to indicate as to how the case of the present petitioners is different from the ones who had filed the aforereferred Civil Revision No,391 of 1997 and were not granted any relief and the petition was dismissed. This Court cannot sit over the judgment of a fellow colleagues. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine."
' The above order has now been assailed through present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel. For petitioners emphatically urged that it was obligatory for the trial Court to have taken into consideration some tangible material for issuing process against the petitioners. It was urged that factually the report of Investigating Officer under section 173, Cr.P.C. Suggested innocence of petitioners, therefore, trial Court did not have legitimate justification to issue process against petitioners. To supplement his contentions reliance was placed on the observations in cases (i) PLD 1966 SC 178 (Shamim v. The State) and (ii) 1982 PCr.LJ 415 (Ali Asghar v. The State).
5. We have perused the record and considered above submission. Obviously petitioners have been placed in Column No,2. Perusal of F.I.R. Discloses participation of petitioners in the offence. It is settled principle that trial Court has plenary authority to summon accused persons who are placed in Column No,2 for facing trial. There is no gainsaying the fact that opinion of Investigating Officer is merely of tentative nature and subject to determination by Court of competent jurisdiction. In the instant case contents of F.I.R. Attribute specific role to the petitioners, therefore, exercise of discretion about summoning the petitioners does not suffer from any material defect or illegality.
The High Court has rightly refused to interfere with said decision of trial Court. The dictum laid down in case 1988 SCM R 1428 (Waqarul Haq v. The State) is squarely applicable to facts of instant case.
Relevant observations are reproduced below. It may, however, be mentioned that judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners have no direct applicability in the circumstances of present case:-- "Be that as it may, the Sessions Court passed the order to the effect that since the petitioners had been implicated in the offence, bailable warrants be issued against them for being present on the next date of hearing i.e, 6th December, 1986. This order was challenged by way of a criminal revision which was eventually dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on Muhammad Alam and another v. Additional Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department and others (PLD 1987 SC 103), and Raja Khushabakhtur Rehman and another v. The State (1985 SCM R 1314) argued that if the petitioners had been discharged by a Magistrate it would mean that the registration of a case against them had been cancelled and they could not be mechanically summoned by the Sessions Court at the trial. 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 appearing 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 could 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."
6. For above reasons and the fact that no question of public importance has been raised for consideration in the instant petition we do not find any justification to interfere with impugned order. Consequently petition having no merits is dismissed and leave prayed for declined.
Leave to .