' Muhammad Hayat, the petitioner through the instant revision petition under sections 435, 439 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has called in question the order dated 30-4-2003 recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karor whereby he has summoned him to face trial in offence under section 302, P.P.C. In the private complaint brought by respondent No.1 Ghulam Farid against him.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that respondent No.1 Ghulam Farid had got registered case F.I.R. No. 93, dated 26-4-2002, with Police Station, Fatehpur District, Layyah. The allegation against him as contained therein is that he while driving Car No.9-MHB rashly and negligently had struck the same with Muhammad Altaf, his son, who had succumbed to his injuries.
3. The petitioner was challaned to Court in the said case in the offence under section 320, P.P.C. The formal charge against him was also framed in the same on 22-6-2002. He (respondent No. 1) on 11- 9-2002 had brought private complaint against him. The preliminary evidence was recorded in the same and vide the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karor had summoned him to face trial in offence under section 302, P.P.C. In it.
4. He feeling aggrieved of the same has brought the instant revision petition.
5. It has been argued on his behalf that the Reader of the Court has recorded the -preliminary evidence; that the facts and circumstances of the case show prima facie the commission of offence under section 320, P.P.C. And not section 302, P.P.C. And hence the impugned order was not called for; and that the same (impugned order) is not speaking one.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
7. The learned Inquiry Magistrate has given certificate underneath the statement of the witnesses of respondent No.1, who were produced in preliminary evidence. The same showed his inability to write their statement in his own hand. The same is that he was running high blood pressure and had injury on his hand and in these circumstances those were recorded on his dictation. In view of his such certificate, the recording of preliminary evidence by him not in his own hand is of hardly any - adverse effect to the impugned order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while summoning the petitioner has kept in view the preliminary evidence brought by respondent No.1 on record. In view of the same, he has observed that there exists prima facie case against him to justify his summoning in offence under section 302, P.P.C. To face trial in the private complaint. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the said order is not speaking one is absolutely without force because at such stage he was required, to make only such observation without entering into the detail discussion in respect of the merits of the case or evidence on record.
42. The respondent No.1 and his witnesses Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Yactoob in their preliminary evidence against him (petitioner) have accused him of having committed the Qatl-e- Amd of the deceased Muhammad Altaf by intentionally striking the car with him. The motive behind the occurrence has also been mentioned by them that he (petitioner) wanted to establish illicit liaison with the wife of the deceased and he in order to remove him from his way has committed his Qatle-eAmd. The look on these statements definitely show the existence of prima facie case against him to justify his summoning to face trial in offence under section 302, P.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, has rightly been passed. Hence, the interference with the same is not warranted. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.
Revision .