MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Versus SAID AKBAR

ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 12th June. 1979 of the Revenue Assistant, Magistrate 1st Class M'abad. It was a case brought by one Mr. Zaman since dead, under section 494/497/109, P. P. C., against the respondents on 30th August, 1974, the trial which resulted in acquittal of the respondents.

2. Mst. Hassan Jan was claimed to have had a legal wedlock with the complainant who had both been living together till 1965 and it was then that she was away from his house iii his absence while in search of his missing son, just a boy, in Pakistan where he met an accident and so he had to remain there for a long time. After his return and arrival at home, near about February, 1974, the wife was found having slipped away from his house. One Lal Khan informed him that she was seen at away and so he, in order to find her out, came to M'abad where she was found living with Said Akbar respondent as his wife after having as gone into second marriage which was brought about by all the respon dents and then a report to the Police was accordingly made and conse quently, the respondents were challaned in the Court to stand their trial for the said offences. Accordingly the Court held the trial of the accused respondents. A number of witnesses were cited as prosecution witnesses out of whom only a few persons, namely, Rustam Khan, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Anwar, Gul Hussain, Muhammad Aziz, Khani Zaman and Kh. Mumtaz Hussain, Sub‑Inspector Police, could be examined by the trial Court.

3. Mir Zaman complainant died before he could depose anything in support of his case.

4. During the investigation, it was disclosed by Mst. Hassan Jan that after having been divorced by her first husband, namely, Mir Zaman, she entered into a second marriage with one Ali Akbar and it was after the death of the latter husband that she entered into marriage with Said Akbar, respondent.

5. She has also two minor daughters from Ali Akbar deceased. Muhammad Anwar, P.W. brother of Ali Akbar deceased says that Ali Akbar had not married Mst. Hassan Jan within his knowledge. He may or may not have the knowledge but the fact remains that she married Ali Akbar from whom she has given birth even to two children. This witness further says that Mir Zaman claimed that she was his wife and on the other hand, Said Akbar says that she is his wife. There is nothing personal in his knowledge in relation to the above facts of marriage with Mir Zaman, Ali Akbar and Said Akbar respondent. He had not even seen Mst. Hassan Jan living with Mir Zaman. Mir Zaman is no longer alive who could tell us about the true state of things and then it would have been possible for the Court to elucidate the truth whether Mst. Hassan Jan was divorced by him or not ? Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that it was within the knowledge of the persons accused of offence of abetment that she was the wife of Mir Zaman when marriage with Said Akbar was solemnized. In another revision petition on the criminal side filed by the petitioner against Mst. Hasan Jan and others, today it was held that Mst. Hassan Jan was a legally‑wedded wife of Ali Akbar after whose death she had entered into marriage with Said Akbar respondent.

6. Mere statements of the witnesses that she was Mir Zaman's wife and was not married to Ali Akbar, cannot now be taken into account because there is a finding of a civil Court in relation to the validity of `Nikah' of Ali Akbar with Mst. Hassan Jan respondent wherein it was held against the petitioner who was then also the opponent of Mst. Hassan Jan respondent in that civil case. Muhammad Anwar is a third person here who has no locus standi to file revision petition in absence of an appeal. He is not even the complai nant. He wants to suck blood out of a turnip. His application, however, could be considered by the High Court if there had been a patent irregularity of a serious nature or an illegality committed by the trial Court coming to the notice of this Court and then there would have been sufficient evidence on record to warrant conviction, but there is no substantial material on record to substantiate the case against the respondents. I do not find that there is anything of the sort com mitted wrongly by the trial Court so as to attract the attention of the High Court.

7. That being so, this revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine for the reasons above.

8. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.