MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others vs THE STATE and another

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the revision petition preferred by the appellants.

2. On 29-7-f987 at about 8-00 a.m. Faqir Hussain deceased was shot dead. His son, Muhammad Ifzal, who was accompanying his father, was also fired at but he escaped unharmed. Muhammad Ifzal lodged the first information report at Police Station Nankana Sahib on the same day at 9-30 a.m. He named five persons to be responsible for the firing. They were Muhammad Aslam son of Tufail, Muhammad Aslam alias Waira, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Ishfaq and Saif. The case was investigated by three police officers. They found Muhammad Aslam alias Waira, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Ishfaq the appellants before us to be innocent. Accordingly, only Muhammad Aslam son of Tufail and Saif were challaned while the appellants were discharged by a Magistrate. In due course the case against Muhammad Aslam son of Tufail and Saif was sent by the Magistrate to the Court of Session for trial.

3. Muhammad Ifzal filed a revision petition before the Court of Session against the order of discharge made in respect of the appellants but it was dismissed. He also filed a private complaint against all the five persons mentioned as the assailants in the first information report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded his statement on oath and referred the complaint for inquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Civil Judge, Ist Class, who was also vested with the powers of Section 30 Magistrate. The learned Inquiry Officer, inter alia, recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses. Considering the evidence before him, he found that prima facie sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against all the persons mentioned in the complaint under section 302, read with sections 149 and 148, Pakistan penal Code. On the basis of this report, the learned Additional Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrants against the appellants. The appellants challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision before the High Court.

Their petition was dismissed. They have now come in appeal to this Court.

4. The main grievance of the appellants was that the learned Inquiry Officer had failed to examine the police officers who had investigated the case and had found them innocent. This grievance is clearly without substance. The investigating officers could give evidence about the opinion they had formed consequent upon the investigations that they had conducted. That being so, their evidence would have been inadmissible. In the circumstances the learned Inquiry Officer did not act improperly in refusing to examine them. We find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.