Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others vs THE STATE and others
This criminal revision petition was filed under sections 435/439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to set aside the summoning order dated 5-3-2003 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Multan, in a private complaint under sections 365-A, 511, 382, 365, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were summoned through a non-speaking order, whether preliminary evidence was unlawfully recorded, and whether a prima facie case was made out. The Lahore High Court held that specific allegations supported by preliminary evidence established a prima facie case for summoning the accused, that recording statements on the judge's dictation satisfies legal requirements, and that delay in recording statements does not vitiate proceedings. The revision petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that summoning orders based on proper preliminary evidence and prima facie findings warrant no interference in revision.
- Whether a summoning order passed by a Special Court can be set aside when preliminary evidence discloses a prima facie case against the accused?
- Does the recording of witness statements on the dictation of the presiding officer satisfy the requirements of law?
- Whether delay in recording the statement of the complainant after the filing of a private complaint vitiates the trial proceedings?
- Can a criminal revision petition against a summoning order be entertained when pending civil litigation is alleged to make the complaint mala fide?
- Sections 435/439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Sections 365-A, 511, 382, 365, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. Through this revision petition under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 5-3-2003 by which the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial in a private complaint titled as "Abdul Qadeer v. 'Muhammad Saleem etc." under sections 365-A, 511, 382, 365, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. And section 7 ATA.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a private complaint titled "Abdul Qadeer v. Muhammad Saleem etc." was filed under the abovesaid provisions in which it was alleged that the respondents while armed with. Klashanikovs and guns had entered into the disputed land and not only cut down the wheat crop but also made firing. Mst.. Sakina Mai wife of the complainant when had intervened was caught hold of her arms and legs put. In the trolley and taken away alongwith the wheat with the intention to commit her murder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the preliminary evidence was not recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Multan, himself without assigning any reason for his inability to record the same; that the private complaint was filed on 29-11-2002 but the statement of the complainant was recorded on 15-1-2003, which illegality is not curable; that sufficient evidence was not available to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners and they have been summoned through a non-speaking order which order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the preliminary evidence recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorism, Multan, P.W.1, Abdul Qadeer complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioners of taking part in the occurrence. According to him Muhammad Saleem was armed with Klashanikov and the permitting petitioners alongwith unknown'apersons were armed with 12 bore guns. After perusal of the statement of P.W.1 which is supported by the averments of the other witnesses prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and they have rightly been summoned by the learned Magistrate. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the statements were not recorded by the learned Presiding Officer himself, it has been written at the end of the statements that these were recorded on the dictation of the learned Presiding Officer," hence this ground is repelled. Non-recording of the statement of the complainant on the same day of filing of private complaint is no ground to adversely affect the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitibners has lastly contended that section 7 of ATA is not applicable as the civil litigation was pending and the filing of the complaint is with mala fide intention. The learned Presiding Officer has summoned the petitioners after the recording of the preliminary evidence. The petitioners if have any documentary evidence in their favour to show that the private complaint has been registered with mala fide intention can approach the same Court undpr the relevant provisions of law but there is no ground for interference in the impugned order of summoning of the petitioners.
6. This revision petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.