BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE

1. This is the second time that this case is coming before me. In the first instance it came to my notice by means of Criminal Revision No. 586 of 1985, filed by Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf and Sarwar. In that they had challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 17‑9‑1985. I rdle6ded the revision by my order dated 19‑11‑1986.

2. The facts pertaining to this case are that a criminal case under sections 307/506/148/149 and 109, P.P.C. was registered against fourteen persons. Ultimately three persons, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf and Sarwar were challaned.

3. Abdul Hamid complainant filed a private complaint against all the fourteen persons. The police challan and the complaint were tried together. The trial Magistrate found only Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf and Sarwar guilty under section 325/34, P.P.C. They were sentenced to nine months, R.I. each, by judgment dated 9‑7‑1984. The rest of the accused were acquitted.

4. The convicts appealed. The complainant filed revision for enhancement of sentence of the convicts. He did not challenge the acquittal.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, remanded the case for re‑trial with the following observation:‑

6. "Obviously the consolidation of the complaint and the challan and their joint trial as so admitted by the learned trial Magistrate is open to exception and cannot be sustained:"

7. In the Criminal Revision No. 586/85 tiled by Ghulam Muhammad and two others against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, it was contended that he was not competent to order re‑trial of those persons who had been acquitted and whose case was not before him nor their acquittal had been challenged by the complainant.

8. After hearing both sides, I decided the Criminal Revision with ' he following observation:‑

9. "The Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the appeal and, revision afresh in accordance with law, on merits."

10. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the matter and summoned all the accused by orders dated 23‑12‑1986 and 6‑1‑1987 Now these orders have been impugned by Bashir Ahmad in this revision.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of my direction as well as against law. He argued that even this time the Additional Sessions Judge committed the same mistake which he did previously. The orders in revision are contrary to the provisions of section 439, Cr.P.C.

12. I have heard the other side as well. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned orders and contended that the Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any error which called for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

13. I have gone through the orders. The Additional Sessions Judge only issued notice to the acquitted accused to show cause why their acquittal be not set aside. It‑'it, therefore, obvious that they are bound to be heard before any order is passed against them. Hence, it is open to them to avail of all legal as well as factual points in their favour. I don't think the impugned orders as such call for any interference.

14. S.G.D./B‑45/L Petition dismissed.