MUHAMMAD AJMAL Versus GHULAM BASEER

Ghulam Baseer filed a complaint for the offences under sections 148, 307/326/324/149, P.P.C. against Muhammad Ajmal and seven others which was dismissed under section 203, Cr. P.C. by Mr. Ziaullah Khan, Resident Magistrate, Gujjar Khan. The complainant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge and the order of the Magistrate was set aside, the case was remanded for further enquiry. Muhammad Ajmal accused has come up in revision.

2. In the preliminary evidence, Ghulam Baseer complainant produced two witnesses and seven medico-legal certificates of the injured in the alleged occurrence and closed the case for the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after assessing the evidence trial Court dismissed the complaint for good reasons. Moreover, it was not complainant's case that his evidence was shut out. Learned counsel contended that under these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge could not order further inquiry in revision. He could only interfere with the order of the trial Court if it was perverse.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent contended that while dismissing the complaint trial Court did not refer to the evidence but simply remarked that the complainant wanted to put up a defence plea in his favour. It may be mentioned here that the present complaint gave a counter-version of the incident put up in the challan cases against the complainant party. The trial Court further observed that the complainant did not disclose as to what happened to the report made by him to the police. Trial Court presumed that the same must have been cancelled and the complainant did nothing about it then and has now filed a complaint after the delay of more than a year. This observation according to the learned counsel was self-contradictory because after making the observation that 'the challan must have been cancelled', the delay stood explained.

4. I have considered the matter. Without taking into account the injuries suffered by the complainant and his witnesses, trial Court jumped at the conclusion that the complaint has been filed to put up a defence in the cross-case. In my view merits of the evidence on record should have been considered and thereafter finding on that evidence should have been given. To put up a cross-case was neither illegal nor improper. In this view of the matter, order of trial Court cannot be called a well-considered order. It was, therefore, rightly set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. This petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial.

S.G.D./M-637/L Petition dismissed.