ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

                 Crl.Revision Appln.No.D-14 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Agha Faisal,

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For orders on M.A.No.7276/2021 (561-A Cr.PC).

03. For hearing of main case.

01.02.2022

                        Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Sunder Khan Chachar, Advocate for private respondents.

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

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision application are that PW Ali Ahmed was abducted, for his abduction; such FIR was lodged with P.S New Foujdari, Shikarpur, by the applicant. On recovery, the said abductee disclosed before the police that he was abducted by the accused for ransom; consequently, a charge sheet was submitted by the police before learned Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, for trial of accused for offence punishable under section 365-A, 506/2 & 34 PPC. On filing of application under section 23 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, the learned Incharge Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, transmitted the case file to learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, for its disposal according to law vide order dated 09.10.2021, which 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 abduction of PW Ali Ahmed was for ransom, which constitutes a scheduled offence, therefore, the learned Incharge Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, ought not to have transmitted the case file to learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, for its disposal according to law.

                        Learned D.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application by contending that the parties are inimical with each other since long and very case is false. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Bismillah Khan Vs. The State (2013 P.Cr.LJ-1720).

We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

It was specifically stated by PW Ali Ahmed in his 161 Cr.PC statement before the Court that he was abducted by the accused and they for his release demanded ransom of rupees thirty Lacs and on basis of such statement the police applied Section 365-A PPC in charge sheet, therefore, the observation of learned Incharge Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur without recording any evidence that the ingredients of Section 365-A PPC are not attracted to the case, was premature and unjustified. Section 365-A PPC is scheduled offence, which could only be tried by the Court, constituted under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. In these premises, the impugned order could not be sustained, it is set aside.

                        The instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly together with listed application.

JUDGE

           JUDGE