'Petitioners are accused in case F.I.R. No,493, dated 22-12-1989 under section 440/452/148/149, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Gulberg Faisalabad. According to allegations levelled in first information report, the accused trespassed into office of the complainant and took away cash, office record and also kept the complainant in confinement for considerable period.
2. The petitioners/accused was challaned to Court and later they submitted an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which was accepted by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the petitioners by order, dated 13-9-1994. The complainant/respondent No,2 preferred a revision petition which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad by order, dated 10-1-1996, order of Trial Court was set aside and case was remanded for proceedings with the case further.
3. Present petition was submitted for quashment of order, dated 10-1-1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in which pre-admission notice to respondent was issued by order, dated 30-3-1998.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No,2, who has appeared in person, has been heard in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that case was hanging fire for almost a decade and the accused were acquitted from the case after five years when prosecution failed to examine two prosecution witnesses namely the Investigating Officers and this order was wrongly interfered into by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondent No,2 on the other hand submitted that accused absented from the Trial Court and they prolonged the proceedings and the reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting then was contrary to record and that learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed, an appropriate order in the matter.
6. The accused were acquitted from the case by the trial Magistrate by observing that there was a considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R., that no recovery was effected and excepting Zahir-ud-Din Sohail, the other accused were found innocent by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, and case was pending since, 1990 and prosecution had not concluded its evidence proceeded to acquit all the accused. Even according to order passed by Magistrate 1st Class, Zahir-ud-Din one of the petitioner was not declared innocent and the trial Magistrate proceeded to acquit him from the case on consideration best known to him.
7. A perusal of the interim order sheet of the learned trial Court shows that case was adjourned on numerous dates on account of absence of one or more of the accused. The case could not conclude on account of delaying tactics employed by the petitioner-accused themselves and prosecution could not be blamed for delay in conclusion of the trial. Additional Sessions Judge had taken stock of the situation and had passed a legitimate order in the matter which does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.
8. The petition is dismissed.
9. Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case and would employ necessary coercive measures including issuance of warrants of arrest of remaining prosecution witnesses to secure their attendance in Court.