' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal has been filed to challenge the order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 28-5-2003.
2. Necessary facts are that a case under sections 307, 447, 147, 148 and 149, A.P.C. Read with section 15 of Islamic Penal Laws Act stood challaned before the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Pallandri. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application to compromise the matter was moved and after recording the statements of the complainant and the injured person, the effect was given to the compromise and the case was dismissed. A revision petition challenging the aforesaid order was filed in the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir where the learned Single Judge appointed two arbitrators after setting aside the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. The arbitrators gave their decision. " The complainant did not accept the aforesaid arbitration, hence this appeal.
3. Mr. Imdad Ali Mallick, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, raised following points in support of the appeal:--
(i) that a lawful compromise was effected. The complainant and the injured witness compromised the matter with the appellants which was accepted by the trial Court and the case consequently was dismissed, therefore, no appeal or revision against the aforesaid order was competent;
(ii) that at the time the learned Judge in the Shariat Court appointed arbitrators all the appellants were not represented in the Court and no order for remanding the case after setting aside the acquittal could be passed;
(iii) that the revision petition filed on behalf of the respondent was not only incompetent and thus not maintainable but also was time-barred as the same was filed after nearly 3-1/2 years;
(iv) that the proceedings undertaken by the Shariat Court were illegal, void ab initio and against the spirit of law; and
(v) that the respondent admitted in the Shariat Court to accept the decision of the arbitrators but subsequently refused to accept it.
4. Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants, argued in the following manner:---
(i) that the basic compromise was against law and someone else appeared and impersonated the complainant at the time of recording the statement;
(ii) that keeping in view the circumstances the learned Judge in the Shariat Court was correct in appointing Arbitrators for a compromise between the parties; and
(iii) that there is no valid ground for interference of this Court as the appellants should have approached to the Shariat Court for redressal of their grievances.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. A case under sections 307, 147, 148 and 149, APC read with section 15 of Islamic Penal Laws Act was pending in the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Pallandri. The parties entered into a compromise. The learned Judge in the Shariat Court recorded the statements of the complainant and the injured witness and thereafter dismissed the case on 25-8-1993. After a period of 3-1/2 years the complainant filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court on 6-1-1997 that the compromise was not lawful hence it may be set aside. The learned Judge in the Shariat Court after hearing the parties proceeded to appoint two arbitrators to decide the matter through arbitration which was to be accepted by the parties. Subsequently, the respondent did not accept the aforesaid arbitration and the appellants challenged the order through this appeal.
6. The first question to be determined is whether any revision petition was competent before the Shariat Court and the same was filed within time. It may be mentioned that under the Islamic Penal Laws Act the order passed by the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction whereby the appellants were discharged, an appeal was competent which had to be filed within a period of six months. In the present case the revision petition was filed after a period of 3-1/2 years whereas the limitation of B sixty days was provided. Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the revision petition was within time as some other person appeared and impersonated the complainant. The aforesaid argument has no merit in the circumstances of the case that the injured witness Mst. Karim Jan, is the real mother of complainant Muhammad Azam Khan, respondent herein, who also recorded her statement, therefore, the impersonation was not possible. Secondly, the explanation given by the learned counsel for filing the delayed revision petition was the late information furnished to the respondent who was out of the country. It is important to be considered that the mother of the complainant was injured during the incident who also compromised and, therefore, the story of information furnished to the complainant at this late stage cannot be accepted. Above all, the compromise was effected on the basis of statements of the complainant and the injured witness duly recorded before the Court. The presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial proceedings, therefore, there is no merit in the point addressed on behalf of the respondent. It will not also be out of place to mention that the learned Judge in the Shariat Court did not set aside the acquittal order on the point raised by Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan that the compromise was not lawful but he proceeded to set aside the order on the ground that the counsel for the parties agreed that arbitrators should be appointed to decide the controversy between the parties which shall be binding on them. It is important to mention that in criminal law the procedure does not provide for appointment of any arbitrator and proposition hardly requires elaborate discussion. Additionally. It is also noticed that the learned Judge in the Shariat Court accepted the revision petition while setting aside the order when appellants Nos. 6 and 7 were not present in the Court and they were not represented by any counsel. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the decision made by the arbitrators was not complied with by the respondent.
7. In view of the above state of facts and law, we are of the view that the revision petition filed before the Shariat Court after a period of 3-1/2 years was not only time-barred but the same was not competent and could not be maintained. The proceedings undertaken by the learned Judge Shariat Court are not recognized by law apart from the fact that there is nothing on the record which may show that the compromise on the basis of the statements of the injured witness and the complainant was not lawful. The presumption of correctness is attached to the proceedings undertaken by the trial Court. It appears that the learned Judge in the Shariat Court has not applied his mind and thus passed an order which is patently illegal and against the basic principles of criminal law. We therefore, accept this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Shariat Court on 28-5-2003 and restore the order passed by the trial Court on 25-8-1993.