ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 114 of 2019

Date Oder with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of main case

29.04.2019

Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan Advocate for complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; The applicant by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C has impugned order dated 08.12.2018 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby his application u/s 539-B Cr.P.C for local inspection of his case, was dismissed.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the instant case the investigation was conducted twicely by the police and at investigation stage witnesses were produced by both the parties, therefore, it is necessary for learned trial Judge to conduct local inspection of the case to verify what the witnesses of both the side have stated before the police during course of investigation, which according to him is essential to arrive at just decision of the case as the justice could not be imparted by the Judges by sitting in the Court rooms and they now have to travel outside of the Court rooms in order to arrive at just conclusion.

3. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by contending that it is misconceived and has been moved by the applicant only to delay just disposal of the case.

4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5. As per Section 539-B Cr.P.C, the place of incident could be inspected by the Judge or Magistrate, as the case may be, if it is found by him that it is necessary to view it for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at trial/inquiry. In the instant case, the applicant obviously is wanting the learned trial Judge to conduct the local inspection not for the above said purpose, but to ascertain the correctness of the statements of the witnesses who were produced before the police by both the partied during course of investigation, under the grab of verification. If such an exercise is allowed to be undertaken then it would amount to order reinvestigation of the case, through learned trial Judge which is not permissible at law.

6. For what has been dismissed above, it could be concluded safely that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI