ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.No.D-09 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi,

For hearing of main case.

16.11.2021

                        Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicants.

                        Mr. Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate for private respondent/complainant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        The applicants by way of instant criminal revision application have impugned order dated 07.05.2021, whereby a direct complaint filed by the private respondent/complainant for his abduction for ransom allegedly at their hands was brought on record by learned I/C Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned trial Judge has ordered for conducting the preliminary inquiry through a Magistrate, which was not warranted at law and statements of the complainant and his witnesses, which were recorded during course of preliminary inquiry being inconsistent, were not sufficient for cognizance of criminal case. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

                        Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.

                        We have considered the above arguments and perused record.

                        There is difference between trial and inquiry. In inquiry, one has to make out his case for cognizance and its burden is light. In trial, one has to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt and its burden is not light. In inquiry, the private respondent/complainant apparently has been able to make out his case for cognizance for the offence allegedly by him against the applicants, such cognizance has rightly been taken by learned trial Court by way of impugned order, which could not be said to be illegal only for the reason that preliminary inquiry is conducted by a Magistrate, to be interfered with by this Court by way of instant criminal revision application, it is dismissed.

  J U D G E

       J U D G E