IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Rev. Appln. No. S- 49 of 2018
Applicant: Sanaullah Shambani through Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman
Soomro, Advocate
Respondents: Saith, Raja
Khan, Hidayat, Liaquat and Shoukat Ali through Mian Mumtaz Rabbani, Advocate
The State, through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar,
Additional Prosecutor
General
Date of hearing: 18.02.2019
Date of order: 18.02.2019
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah,
J;- The
applicant by way of instant Criminal Revision Application has impugned order
dated 18.04.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, whereby the
direct complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed u/s. 203 Cr.PC.
2. The facts in brief necessary
for disposal of instant Criminal Revision Application are that as per the
applicant the private respondents in order to satisfy their matrimonial dispute
with him robbed him of his belonging by way of maltreatment for that he lodged
FIR Crime NO.63/2017 under Section 395, 148, 149 PPC
with P.S Salehpat, it was
cancelled under ‘B’ class. Subsequently, he filed direct complaint for
prosecution of the private respondents for the above said offence, it was
assigned for its disposal to learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur who in turn
assigned the same to learned 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Rohri for preliminary enquiry, it was conducted and
then learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur dismissed the complaint, such dismissal of his
complaint, the applicant has impugned before this Court by way of instant
Criminal Revision Application, as stated above.
3. It
is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, has dismissed the
complaint of the applicant without lawful justification, ignoring the fact that
the applicant was able to make out a case for cognizance of his complaint. By
contending so, he sought for remand of the matter to the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur,
with direction to take cognizance of the offence and then to proceed with it in
accordance with law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the cases
of Abdul
Sattar Khan vs. The State and others (2014 P Cr.L J 1133), Haji Jamalu Hussain vs. Ilaqa Magistrate
Section 30 Multan and others (2012 P. Cr.LJ 159)
& Hassan Ali vs. Bakhat Sawab
and others (2015 P.Cr.LJ 332).
4. Learned
Addl:P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents have
sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision Application by contending
that the applicant in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with the private
respondent is intending to involve them in false case by leveling false
allegation of robbery.
5. I have considered the above
arguments and perused the record.
6. In
inquiry, the applicant has to make out a prima facie case for cognizance. At
trial, the applicant has to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt. Inquiry
could be equated with trial. In the instant case, the allegation so leveled by
the applicant against the private respondents, the applicant was able to prove
by examining him and his witnesses at inquiry and it prima facie was enough for
taking cognizance of the offence. In that situation, the impugned order of
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, could not be sustained, it is set aside.
7. In
case of Noor Muhammad vs. State (PLD 2007 SC-09), it has been held by
the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;
“Burden of
proof in preliminary inquiry for issuance of process is much lighter on the complainant
as compared to the burden of proof on prosecution at trial of
offence---Prosecution, during trial, is to prove case beyond reasonable doubt
and at preliminary stage complainant is not required to discharge heavy burden
of proof”.
8. Consequent
upon above discussion, the matter is remanded to learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, with
direction to pass fresh and appropriate order, after due hearing to all the
concerned.
9. The
instant Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly
Judge
ARBROHI