1. ' This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-8-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur.
2. ' The relevant facts giving arise to this revision application are that the applicant/complainant filed a direct complaint against the respondents 1 and 5 others under sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur. The learned trial Judge recorded the statement of the complainant wider section 200, Cr.P.C. And directed to hold preliminary enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. The complainant was asked to produce his witnesses. However, the complainant did not examine any witness and closed his side. The learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments directed to register a case against the accused persons except respondent No,l.
3. ' The impugned order reads as follows:-- "Perused the complaint, statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And his, witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. And other material produced by the complainant.
4. ' I am satisfied that the complainant has made out a prima facie case for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Act II of 1947, against the accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only. Register a case, issue B.Ws. In the sum of Rs,50,000 for securing the attendance of accused persons. The complainant however, is directed to supply the copies for compliance of section 241- A, Cr.P.C."
5. ' The order-sheet reads as follows:-- "Complainant is present. Heard arguments. Order prima facie case is made out against the accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Register case against them. Issue B.Ws."
6. ' Being aggrieved with the non-registration- of the case against the respondent No,1, the applicant/complainant submitted an application before the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Sukkur on 22-8-2001, praying for issuance of process against the respondent No,l. The learned trial Judge disposed of the application with the order that, "since the order has been passed, therefore, the complainant is advised to file a revision application, if so desired".
7. ' Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred this revision application. It is averred in the grounds contained in the memo. Of revision application, that the applicant had implicated the respondent No,!, in his direct complaint and statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. And there was no reason to exclude him from the registration of case. It is further alleged that specific role was assigned to the respondent No,1, constituting the offence. It is also, urged that the learned trial Court committed error by refusing to register the case against the respondent No,1, without recording any reason as provided under section 203, Cr.P.C.
8. ' Heard Mr. Gul Bahar Korai, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, learned counsel for the respondent No,1, and Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro, learned State Counsel.
9. ' Mr. Gul Bohar Korai. Advocate has reiterated the contentions raised in the memo. Of revision application. His main plank of argument is that under section 203, Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court was required to record reasons for non-issuance of process against the respondent No,1, and dismissal of the complaint against him. This mandatory requirement has been ignored and the impugned order made by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur is totally silent, therefore, the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of complaint against the respondent No,1, by implication, is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned trial Court to pass fresh order in respect of the respondent No,1 assigning reasons.
10. ' The learned State Counsel has supporteu the learned counsel for the complainant/applicant.
11. ' On the other hand. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, learned counsel for the respondent No,1, has after candidly conceding. That the learned trial Judge was required to assign reasons for non-registration of a case against the respondent No,1, has submitted that notwithstanding, this lapse on the part of trial Court, the case should not be remanded to the trial Court for further orders because it would amount to an exercise infutility. According to him, there is not a single word against the respondent No,1, in the statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And consequently no process can be issued against him. He has submitted that in fact the learned trial Court/Judge. Ought to have dismissed the entire complaint for the reason, that after recording of statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C., he was not satisfied that sufficient grounds were made out for proceeding with the case. He had, therefore, ordered for preliminary enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. He has drawn my attention to the order-sheet, dated 26-7-2001 which reads as follows:-- "Complaint is received today. Complainant is present. His statement under section 200, Cr.P.C.
12. Recorded. In order to ascertain the truth or falsehood, let preliminary enquiry be held and complainant to produce his witnesses for the purpose of preliminary enquiry."
13. ' However, the complainant did not produce any witness and closed his side. Thus when a Court is not satisfied on the basis of statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And directs a preliminary enquiry for ascertaining, truth or falsehood of the complaint and the complainant refuses to produce the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C., it amounts to refusal, to the compliance of the Court's order, and thereafter there can be no reason for satisfaction of the Court for the issuance of process under section 204, Cr.P.C., on the basis of statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. Which was not found sufficient initially for the registration of a case and issuance of process, and therefore, only order which could be passed by the learned trial Judge could be the dismissal of the complainant under section 203, Cr.P.C. He has contended that it is not known as to what were the reasons or considerations which prevailed with the learned trial Judge, to change his opinion without production of any witness in preliminary enquiry and without any additional material coming on record other than that available on 26-7-2001, which was not found sufficient for registration of the case and issuance of process against the accused persons.
14. ' He has further pointed out that a perusal of the impugned order dated 18-8-2001 shows that it has been passed without application of mind and on the basis of material which was admitted;y never brought on record. He has contended that it is admitted position that the complainant did not produce any witness in the preliminary enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. And contumaciously closed his side and refused to comply with the directions of the learned trial Court for producing his witnesses in the preliminary enquiry, but the impugned order contains that the learned Judge, "perused the complaint, statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And his witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. And other material produced by the complainant". The order proceeds on to say that the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against the accused 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan counsel for the respondent No,1, has submitted that the learned trial Judge has referred the statements of the witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. Which is figment of imagination, as no such statements were ever recorded.
15. ' He has submitted that the complaint was lodged with the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court, Sukkur with the main grievance that a false medical certificate was prepared by Dr. Ismail Abbasi, Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital, Panoakil, in connivance with A.S.-I. Abdul Jabbar Mahar, Incharge Police Post Sangi at the instance of accused Shahzado, Rasool Bux and Ghulam Nabi. It was alleged that the medical certificate was verified by the respondent No,1, Dr. Abdul Wahid Abbasi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sukkur also. He has read the entire statement of the applicant/complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. Which contains that Mukhtar Ali and Ali Hassan had intimated that A.S.-I. Abdul Jabbar Mahar and Dr. Ismail Abbasi had accepted Rs,5,000 each as bribe. In the statement there is no such allegation against the respondent No,1, Dr. Abdul Wahid Abbasi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sukkur. The statement only says that opinion of Dr. Abdul Wahid Abbasi was also sought. The statement further contains that subsequently a Medical Board was constituted to consider the genuineness of the certificate issued by Dr. Muhammad Ismail Abbasi. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, has taken me through the contents of the certificate issued by the Medical Board which has been produced by the complainant. A perusal of certificate issued by the Medical Board shows, that Dr. Muhammad Ismail, M.O., Taluka Hospital, Panoakil, injured Shahzado (one of the accused against whom the case has been registered by the learned trial Court) and the complainant Ali Murad were called by the Special Medical Board. The finding of the Medical Board is to the effect that Dr. Muhammad Ismail Abbasi determined four injuries in the medico- legal certificate issued by him, caused by hard and blunt substance. The injuries certified by Dr. Muhammad Ismail Abbasi were examined by the Board and the X-Ray and opinion issued by Radiologist, Civil Hospital. Sukkur were also .Examined. The final opinion given by the Medical Board was as follows:-- "The Special Medical Board is of the opinion that the nature of injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 and injury No,4, on the Radiologist opinion issued by the Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Sukkur declared by the Medical Officer in the medico-'egal certificate is found correct. But on considering the facts determined in the para. No,4, the possibility of self-inflicted could not be excluded regarding the injury No,4."
16. ' Mr. Imdad Ali Awan has submitted that respondent No,1, was Radiologist in Civil Hospital, Sukkur and the Medical Board has unequivocally opined that the Radiologist's opinion issued by the Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Sukkur is found correct. Thus, first, there is no allegation of acceptance of bribe by the respondent No,1, and secondly, on the basis of material produced by the complainant himself the opinion given by the respondent No,!, was found to be correct. He has submitted that in these circumstances there was no material whatsoever for registration of a case against the respondent No,1 and issuance of process against him.
17. ' Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has conceded that the learned trial Judge has passed an order without assigning reason and without application of mind, on the basis of some imaginary statements under section 202, Cr.P.C., but the order, qua, the respondent No,1, is correct, therefore, the case should not be remanded to the trial Court for passing an order which is already of foregone conclusion, as it would tantamount to cause harassment to the respondent No,1, who is a very respectable person being a Senior Doctor and has been dragged unnecessarily by the applicant/complainant with mala fide intentions. He has submitted that this Court shall exercise a revisional jurisdiction in furtherance of ends of justice and not in aid of a mala fide act on the part of the complainant which would amount to abuse of process of law.
18. ' Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, has vehemently argued that the respondent No,1, filed a counter-affidavit, specifically contending that the applicant is not an aggrieved party and he has no cause of action to file the criminal revision application or direct complaint in the Court of Special Judge. Anti- Corruption, Sukkur against the respondent No, 1 . It was further averred in the counter-affidavit that the direct complaint against the respondent No,1, was false and frivolous and that the applicant who is an Advocate has committed professional misconduct. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the applicant/complainant appeared as an Advocate in Constitutional petition before the High Court in C.P. No,S-203 of 2001 on behalf of the petitioner Ali Murad who appeared before Medical Board also, in respect of the same subject-matter and it was dismissed for non- prosecution on 1-6-2001. The applicant/complainant Muhammad Punhal Soomro son of Muhammad Usman Soomro, who appeared as an Advocate on behalf of Ali Murad in the High Court himself became a complainant in the direct complaint filed before the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Sukkur. In his direct complaint, the applicant did not disclose the filing of the petition in the High Court by All Murad and appearance of the applicant as his Advocate. This fact was concealed and Therefore, the act of applicant, relegating himself to a complainant from Advocate and then concealment of the filing of the petition in the High Court and dismissal thereof amounts to professional misconduct under the Bar Council and Legal Practitioners Act, 1973, and therefore, the matter be referred to the Sindh Bar Council for initiating necessary proceedings against the applicant. Mr. Imdad All Awan has further submitted that the respondent No,1, clearly took a plea in his counter-affidavit that the Medical Board opined that the certificate issued by the respondent No,1, was correct and no rejoinder has been filed to rebut the contents of the counter-affidavit. It was also contained in the counter-affidavit that the direct complaint filed by the applicant was with the mala fide, intention and ulterior motives and that the revision was liable to be dismissed with special compensatory costs to the answering respondent, as the respondent has been falsely implicated for blackmailing. Since the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No,1 have not been rebutted by the complainant/applicant, therefore, it shall be deemed to have been admitted and consequently the revision application may be dismissed with heavy cost to be paid to the respondent No,1, and the matter may be referred to the Sindh t3ar Council for taking legal action against the applicant/complainant.
19. ' He has submitted that an Advocate is required to observe the Code of Conduct and as an officer of the Court he is duty bound to disclose all the facts to the Court and not to involve himself in the false and frivolous litigation. He has contended that such instances are increasing and bringing bad name to the legal profession and therefore, a very strict action is required to curb such tendency on the part of Members of the Legal Profession. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmed v. Nisar Ahmed 1994 CLC 2443. The cited case arose out of the facts that there were several rounds of litigation between the parties in which Suits, appeals and revisions were filed in respect of the same matter. The Lahore High Court during the course of hearing of a revision application, took notice of the long chain of litigation between the parties and made certain adverse observations about the conduct of the respondents and their lawyers for their indulging in reckless, frivolous litigation, jeopardizing even efficacy of the present judicial system and to check this unwholesome tendency, initiated some corrective measures. The following observations/directions were made:-- "The above resume indicates that the respondents, without caring for the principle of res judicata as embudied in section 11 of the C.P.C., are repeatedly bringing the suits against the petitioner No,1, in respect of the same subject-matter with a view to keep him involved in reckless litigation, I have yet to see a litigation so frivolous and vexatious besides mala fide. Some litigants, on account of their typical background, do indulge in frivolous and reckless litigation against their opponents but lawyers, who owe a duty for the fair administration of justice, are not supposed to play in the hands of such litigants and dance to their tune. In this case, I feel constrained to say that the lawyers, who continue to draft plaints, file suits and appeals for the respondents, which they fully knew that the same were clearly barred by the principle of res judicata, have while doing so, done a great deal in polluting the administration of justice. This is a professional misconduct. Thus, the civil revision is accepted with costs and the impugned order is set aside. I would direct the learned District Judge, Gujrat, to prepare a list of all the suits and appeals/revisions which have been filed by the respondents or their father against petitioner No,1, in respect of the disputed property, as also the list of counsel who have been persuing these matters, and submit the same to this Bench through Deputy Registrar (Judi.) within a month."
20. ' While dealing with a miscellaneous application in the above chain of events, dthe learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court observed as follows:-- "One can imagine the plight of the petitioner, who at one stage during the pendency of the above said civil revision, had even started crying in the Court, perhaps very rightly, bewailing on his helplessness and decrying the viability of the system. I gave him the relief he was held entitled to and expressed my views in somewhat strong language about the conduct of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 in involving their opponent in reckless litigation, with the hope that they would desist in future from this perilous course but on return to Gujrat they brought yet another suit against him, challenging the ejectment proceedings and execution proceedings of the Revenue Authorities, and the learned Civil Judge, without applying his mind to the question of jurisdiction, is leisurely proceeding with the trial. Even the bare reading of the plaint would reveal that the question of jurisdiction was busty involved but he never adverted to it or did not possess sufficient ability to understand it. If the respondents had any grievance against the order of the Tehsildar, they could approach' the higher forum on the Revenue side but they came to the Civil Court, the kind of forum which is heaven for the unscrupulous litigant, as they are to entrap their opponents in a swamp from which they can never come out for generations."
21. ' The learned Judge while commenting on the conduct of the counsel for the respondents observed as follows:-- "Ordinarily respondents Nos.1 to 4 would not have persisted in their frivolous and vexatious litigation against the petitioner, if their counsel had not advised them. This malpractice of false and frivolous litigation, which has defamed and eroded the entire system of administration of justice, therefore, cannot be curbed unless a section of lawyers, which encourages it, is taken to task. From the list (Annexure I) prepared by the learned District Judge, Gujrat it appears that Haji Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Munir Gondal, Khan Alimullah Khan and Syed Yasoob-ul-Hassan, Advocates at Gujrat, were instrumental in fostering fake, frivolous and vexatious litigation against the petitioner, by providing legal assistance to respondents Nos.1 to 4 at different occasions and apparently they all seem to be guilty of professional misconduct besides liable to prosecution under the provisions of law mentioned in, the preceding paragraph of this judgment as abettors of their clients; but I would leave the question of their prosecution to the petitioner, and would confine myself only to the intimation of disciplinary action. The office shall, therefore, send a copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of Annexure I, to the Chairman, Punjab Bar Council for taking action against them for professional misconduct."
22. ' I have very carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the entire material on record. The learned Advocates for the parties and the learned State Counsel have agreed on one point that the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has passed the order without application of mind and ignoring the mandatory requirements of law.
23. I am persuaded to agree with the unanimous view of all the learned Advocates. It is very clear that the learned Special Judge being a very Senior Judicial Officer has conducted the proceedings in stereotyped and mechanical manner, without application of mind. After recording of the statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. He ought to have applied his mind, whether the statement of the complainant under section 200 and the material produced by him was sufficient to proceed with the case or a preliminary enquiry was required under section 202, Cr.P.C. It has been held by this Court in the case of Allahwadayo v. Wali Muhammad 2001 PCr.LJ 914 that, "it is not requirement of law that the Court on receiving of direct complaint must hold preliminary enquiry. If a prima facie case is made out, the Court can take cognizance of the same after examining the complainant on oath and if no prima facie case is made out, the Court is competent to dismiss the same. The preliminary enquiry is to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the facts disclosed in the complaint. For dismissal or taking cognizance preliminary enquiry is not condition precedent".
24. ' In the first instance, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur without application of mind directed for preliminary enquiry in mechanical manner, as if it was mandatory requirement of law.
25. However, after directing the preliminary enquiry, when the complainant declined to produce his witnesses as directed, the learned Judge passed an order which is still worst, as again it was without application of mind. The learned Judge referred to the statements of the witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C., which were admittedly never recorded. This fact alone shows that the learned Judge neither took trouble of going through the file nor even his own order-sheet. The learned Judge ought to have remembered, even if he had not gone through the file, that the complainant was required to produce witnesses in preliminary enquiry on 4-8-2001, which he had not done and had closed his side and the impugned order was made on 18-8-2001, i,e, merely after 14 days of the non-production of the witnesses. From the perusal of the order it further transpires that the learned Judge holding very responsible and important post of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption not only failed to record correct facts in his short order dated 18-8-2001 but never bothered to consult the provisions of law contained in sections 202, 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. It is specified in section 202, Cr.P.C. That the Court may, if it thinks fit for reasons to be recorded, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of a person complained against and either inquire into the case itself or direct enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. The learned Special Judge after recording of the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. As required under the law did not record the reason for postponing the issue of process and holding of preliminary enquiry. Thereafter he ignored the mandatory requirement of law under section 203, Cr.P.C., that when a complaint is dismissed for the reason that in his judgment, there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding, the Court shall briefly record his reasons for doing so. In fact the impugned order is totally silent in respect of the respondent No,1, and therefore, the complaint against him has been dismissed impliedly, which was required to be dismissed by an order to the effect that there were no sufficient grounds for proceedings against him and for the brief reasons for doing so. The learned Special Judge, did not realize that while passing the impugned order, he was making a judicial order and even if it was not specifically stated in law that reasons are to be recorded, he ought to have recorded the reasons which is a necessary attribute of a judicial order. In this case it is specifically provided in sections 202 and 203 that for postponing the issue of process reasons are to be recorded and thus mere reproduction of the words from section 202, Cr.P.C. That preliminary enquiry was required for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint was not sufficient, and that it was specifically required under section 203, Cr.P.C. That the complaint shall be dismissed for the reasons briefly recorded for doing so. The course adopted by the learned Special Judge, whereby the complaint against the respondent No,1, has been dismissed impliedly, by virtue of the impugned order being silent regarding issuance of process against him, is totally unwarranted and in, flagrant violation of mandatory requirement of law. By virtue of subsection (2) of section 24-A, of the General Clauses Act, 1897, even the administrative authorities are required to give reason for making an order.
26. ' However, a very pertinent question for consideration is whether the matter should be remanded to the learned trial Court for passing a fresh order in respect of the respondent No,l. A perusal of section 435, Cr.P.C. Shows that the power of revision is discretionary and the revisional Court may call for an examination the record of proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the irregularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court section 436, Cr.P.C. Provides that on examining any record under section 435, Cr.P.C. Or otherwise the High Court may direct to make further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. Or subsection (3) of section 204, Cr.P.C. I have very carefully examined these provisions and have given very anxious consideration. I am of the opinion that the revisional jurisdiction has been conferred on this Court as a corrective jurisdiction; therefore, it should always be exercised in furtherance of justice and not in the aid of abuse of process of law. If any injustice is found to have been committed by the inferior Criminal Court, the Revisional Court shall exercise the discretion in such a manner that the injustice is removed and the purpose of law is served. Another important aspect is to be kept in view, that no body should be made to ,suffer on account of a negligence, inefficiency or illegality on the part of a Court. Thus keeping these principles in view, I am of the opinion that although the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has committed gross illegality in the proceedings while making the impugned order, but before the remanding the case to the trial Court, it is required to be examined whether, any injustice has been done to the applicant and whether any meaningful purpose shall be served by doing so. I have examined the entire material placed on record with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties and I have found, that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the respondent No,1, committed any offence. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent No,1, has committed any cheating, forgery of record, forgery of any document or used any false documents as genuine and either demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. The complainant has not stated even a single word in his statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. Regarding the commission of any such offence by the respondent No,1, and the Medical Board has given a clean chit to him, by giving opinion, that the Radiologist opinion issued by the respondent No,1, was correct.
27. ' In the above circumstances no purpose, whatsoever shall be served by remanding the case to the trial Court and would amount to causing harassment to the respondent No,1, who is a senior Doctor in Civil Hospital, Sukkur. The complainant closed his side without examining any witness in the preliminary enquiry directed by the learned Judge and has not prayed for direction of any further enquiry as envisaged under section 436, Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any justification either for directing the trial Court to register the case against respondent No,1, or to remand the case to the trial Judge for fresh orders.
28. ' Consequent to the above reasons, the revision application stands dismissed.
29. ' This brings me to the submissions made by Mr. Imdad Ali Awan that the applicant Muhammad Punhal Soomro has committed a professional misconduct, first by relegating himself to the position of the complainant after having appeared as Advocate in the High Court on behalf of All Murad petitioner in C.P.S. 203 of 2001. The contents of the petition in High Court and the complaint before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur are same. Secondly, he concealed the facts of filing of writ petition in the High Court in his complaint and statement under section 200, Cr.P.C.
30. Before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, and in the present criminal revision application.
31. Thirdly he became instrumental in filing frivolous and false proceeaings against the respondent No,l. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, Advocate, has vehemently argued that heavy costs be imposed upon the applicant and the matter be referred to the Sindh Bar Council for initiating the necessary proceedings against the applicant, ' I am persuaded to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, Advocate for the respondent No,1, and further agree with the observations made by Abdul Majid Tiwana, J. Of the Lahore High Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmed v. Nisar Ahmed 1994 CLC 2443. I, therefore, direct that the office shall send a copy of this judgment to the Sindh Bar Council, Karachi for taking action against the applicant Muhammad Punhal Soomro, Advocate for professional misconduct after giving opportunity of being heard to him.
32. ' I further direct the applicant to pay costs of Rs,25,000 to the respondent No,1, within 2 months. The costs be paid directly to the respondent No,1, and receipt be produced before the Deputy Registrar of this Court at Sukkur or it may be deposited directly with the Deputy Registrar of this Court at Sukkur. In case of default the cost is to be recovered by coercive process.
33. ' I further direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar, at Principal Seat at Karachi, with the direction to obtain necessary orders from his Lordship, the Chief Justice and to issue show-cause notice to Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur calling upon him to explain his conduct and his position pertaining to the illegalities committed by him as pointed out in this judgment. In case he is not able to satisfactorily explain, his conduct and commission of illegalities, a show-cause notice be issued as to why strict disciplinary action should not be taken against him, as he is not fit to hold the post of District and Sessions Judge and by virtue thereof to hold a very responsible post of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption.. I would like to conclude with the observations that such conduct as shown, by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur could not be countenanced, even on the part of a very junior judicial officer.
34. ' After hearing learned Advocates for the parties, the revision application was dismissed by a short order on 11-12-2002. These are the detailed reasons therefor.
35. Revision .