IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Criminal Revision Application No.S-15 of 2019.
Applicant :
Dildar alis Dilbar alias Dilo son of Guloo
alias Ghulam Qadir Larik,
Through Mr. Khan Muhammad Shaikh,
Advocate
Complainant : Muhammad Kamil in person.
State :
Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar,
D.P.G.
Date of
hearing : 13-05-2019.
Date of decision : 13-05-2019.
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD
ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief
necessary for disposal of instant revision application are that the applicant
and others after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their
common object abducted Barkat Ali, committed his murder and then caused
disappearance of his dead body with intention to save themselves from legal
consequences. An FIR to that effect was also lodged by the complainant, but he
being dis-satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police filed a
direct complaint before the Court having jurisdiction. It was brought on record
and then applicant by way of an application u/s 265-K Cr.P.C sought for his
acquittal. It was declined by learned trial Court vide ITS order dated
14-12-2017, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of
instant Criminal revision application.
2. It is
contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being
innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant and learned
trial Court has failed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. By contending
so, he sought for acquittal of the applicant.
3. Learned DPG
for the state who is assisted by the complainant has sought for dismissal of
instant Revision application, same according to them is hit by latches.
4. I have
considered the arguments and perused the record.
5. Admittedly
the direct complaint filed by the complainant has been brought on record,
charge against the applicant has been framed, the applicant now seeking his
acquittal mainly for the reason that he is named in state case and the learned
trial Court has failed to expedite disposal of case against him, which is filed
by the complainant. No harm would be caused to the applicant, if state case is
allowed to proceed with direct complaint side by side. If for the sake of argument, it is believed
that trial Court has not been able to make disposal of the case against the
applicant expeditiously, even then it may not be a reason for his acquittal. In
these circumstances, learned trial Court has committed no illegally by declining
acquittal of the applicant pre-maturely by way of impugned order, which is not
calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant Cr. Revision
Application. It is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Nasim/P.A
.