MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--This petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-9-1988 has been filed by Muhammad Bakhsh and six others. All of them had appealed to the High Court against their conviction and sentence under section 307/325/148/149, P.P.C. Awarded by the trial Magistrate. Their appeal was dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

2. ' The occurrence in which they were alleged to have been involved took place on 24-10-1981 at evening time in Chah Dahra, Dakhli Mauza Daggar Aulakh, Bhakkar. Report was lodged by Allah Bakhsh. It was recorded by Muhammad Yaqub A.S.I.

3. ' Motive was civil litigation between the parties with regard to possession of Khasra Nos.707, 709 regarding which a civil suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhakkar.

4. ' All the petitioners had sticks except Muhammad Bakhsh who was armed with hatchet. First- informant Allah Bakhsh was injured. He received nine injuries. The petitioners denied the allegation and took up the plea of self-defence.

5. The High Court considered all the relevant facts starting with motive, ocular evidence, recovery of weapons used, medical evidence, plea of the petitioners and then came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for interference and thus upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

6. ' Before us, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition raised number of grounds. As most of them pertain to the appraisal of evidence, we don't think it is necessary to mention those.

7. Nevertheless two points are worth considering--the first is that emphasis was laid by the learned counsel that after arguments concluded the judgment was announced after one year. The second which appears to have some substance was that initially the petitioners were tried by Magistrate Section 30 who by judgment dated 7-3-1985 convicted only two and acquitted the rest. On appeal, the appellate Court remanded the case to the Magistrate with a direction to record the statements of the petitioners under section 342, Cr.P.C. Read with 364, Cr.P.C. And also to examine the accused under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. With an opportunity to lead evidence in defence.

8. No doubt the judgment was announced one year after it had been reserved but we find that the learned judge adverted to all the points as mentioned above. Nevertheless it is proper that once the arguments conclude and the judgment reserved, it has to be announced within reasonable period. We are ' sure that in future no unnecessary delay will take place in announcement of judgments.

9. ' So far as the second point is concerned, there is no mention of this in the judgment of the learned Judge from which it can be safely inferred that this point was not raised. Had it been argued before the learned Judge, it would have found mention in the impugned judgment. As such we are not obliged to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice we permitted him to argue this point.

10. ' We don't think the petitioners are entitled to any benefit because initially a Magistrate had convicted only two and acquitted the rest. In any case, that judgment was set aside by the appellate Court.

11. The Magistrate who took cognizance for the second time was expected to apply his mind irrespective of what had happened before. This he did and came to the contrary conclusion than the one arrived at in the beginning.

12. Second time the appeal came direct to the High Court where the entire evidence was appraised.

13. We have not come across anything which could indicate that any of the principles for the administration of criminal justice had been violated.

14. ' There is no question of law of public importance involved in this petition which is hereby dismissed.