' A case F.I.R. No,82 of 1998, dated 28-4-1998 under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. On the complaint of Master Allah Wasaaya had been registered against the three accused persons sons of the petitioner at Police Station Pacca Laaran on the allegation of murder of Ghamoon Khan nephew of the complainant.
2. After investigation of the case, challan has been sent to the Court and the petitioner. Mauj Ali son of Jumma Khan and Mst. Siddigan was of Gaman had been summoned by the trial Court after taking cognizance of the case vide its order, dated 24-7-1999. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners through the instant criminal revision contending that the Court was not competent to summon the petitioners to face the trial of the case without recording some evidence. He relies on the case of S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another (1991 M LD 1977 Quetta).
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The names of the petitioners were placed in column No,2 of the challan and the trial Court having found material on the file of the case against the petitioners, summoned them to face the trial. It is settled principle of law that when the Court taking cognizance of the offence on a police report that takes the cognizance of the whole case not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender. The case against the petitioner has been sent to the Court and their names were placed in column No,2 of the challan. The trial Court can summon the accused placed in Column No,2 of the challan to face the trial and there is no legal bar whatsoever that at first instance , evidence should be recorded to ascertain as, to whether prima facie case is made on against them. A reference in this context can be made to the case of Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others (2002 SCM R 63).
4. Therefore, in following the dictum laid down by the apex Court, I am Constrained to observe that the Court while issuing process against the petitioners committed no illegality and the order passed by the lower Court/Additional Sessions Judge calls for no interference which is unexceptionable. Resultantly, this revision petition having no froce, is dismissed.