MUHAMMAD OADEER Versus MIAN MASOOD AHMAD

ORDER

1. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Court had taken the cognizance and, thereafter, on the basis of the discharge report submitted by the police, the accused were discharged. Further, contends that the course of action adopted by Judged, Special Court is not warranted by law as envisaged by the Supreme Court in judgment reported as Muhammad Aslam v. Addl. Secretary to N.‑W.F.P. PLD 1987 SC 103. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that once the cognizance has been taken, then, the question of discharge does not at all arise. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General also concedes that such course of action could not have been adopted by the Judge Special Court.

2. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the 'order impugned is also not a speaking order.

3. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 22nd of January, 1992 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law.

4. N.H.Q./M‑342/L Petition accepted.