ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Revision Appln No.S-12 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

06.01.2022

                        Mr. Ghulam Shabir Baloch, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant criminal revision application that a cheque was issued in favour of the applicant by the private respondent, dishonestly, it was bounced by the concerned Bank, when was presented there for encashment, the incident was reported by the applicant to the police, and after due investigation, the private respondent was challaned by the police and after due trial was convicted and sentenced to under R.I for four months and to pay fine of Rs.45,000/- and in case of his failure to make payment of fine to undergo S.I for 30 days, by learned 1^st Judicial Magistrate/MTMC, Qamber, vide judgment dated 21.10.2020. The appeal preferred by the private respondent against such conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, vide judgment dated 19.01.2021; it is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant criminal revision application.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the punishment awarded to the applicant was inadequate; therefore, it needs to be enhanced by this Court by way of instant criminal revision application.

                        None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent. However, learned Addl.P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application by contending that it is incompetent.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        Admittedly, the private respondent was convicted and sentenced for the alleged offence by learned trial Magistrate. If the applicant was not satisfied with the conviction and sentence awarded to the private respondent by learned trial Magistrate then he was to have sought for its enhancement by preferring a criminal revision application before learned Sessions Judge, having jurisdiction. If it would have filed there, then the same was to have been disposed of by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber being Appellate Court, together with appeal of the private respondent. After dismissal of appeal of the private respondent by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber being Appellate Court, the preferring of instant criminal revision application before this Court for enhancement of the conviction and sentence already served by the private respondent would not be justified. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application being misconceived is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE