IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 55 of 2022.
Fayyaz Hussain Jatoi. ……..…..Applicant.
Versus
Attaullah and others. ….....Respondents.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
Date of Order: 17.10.2022.
Date of reasons: 18.10.2022.
O R D E R
Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through this revision, applicant Fayyaz Hussain Jatoi has assailed the two orders dated 11.6.2022, whereby a direct complaint filed by him was dismissed as being not maintainable and order dated 03.08.2022 whereby application filed by him under Section 369 Cr.P.C., seeking correction in an order dated 11.6.2022, was also dismissed by learned Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana.
2. The case of the applicant is that he filed a direct complaint before the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana, alleging therein that, accused Attaullah Mirjat and Yar Muhammad were appointed in Provincial Highways Division, Larkana, in BPS-01 to the posts of “Beldar” and “Naib Qasid” respectively, and that they obtained illegal promotions from BPS-01 to BPS-11 as Clerk and thereby caused loss to the government exchequer.
3. The complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed by learned Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana, vide Order dated 11.06.2022. It would be advantageous to reproduce the operative part of the aforesaid order, which reads as under:
“Careful perusal of the complaint and documents produced by the complainant, it appears that respondents were promoted by the Highways Department and complainant is not aggrieved person and he is not employee of Highways Department, therefore, it is matter of departmental promotion of employees and complainant is not aggrieved person, hence the complaint is appearing to be not maintainable before this Court under the provisions of Anti-corruption Act, 1947, therefore, instant complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.”
4. After the dismissal of his complaint, the applicant filed an application under Section 369 Cr.P.C seeking correction in the order dated 11.6.2022, which too was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2022. The operative part of the order is reproduced here:
“Careful perusal of direct complaint and order passed by this Court dated 11.6.2022 shows that no mistake is appearing I the order passed by this Court and order was passed in accordance with law. The name of advocate or signature of advocate is not appearing in the direct complaint, later on power was filed by learned counsel for the complainant. The facts and prayer made in the direct complaint are mentioned in the order dated 11.6.2022; therefore, there is no clerical or typographical mistake in the order to allow the application. Court cannot review its own order. As such the application is hereby dismissed accordingly.”
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as learned D.P.G appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the direct complaint was dismissed at the very initial stage without recording the statement of the complainant/applicant in a hasty manner; that the learned trial Court dismissed the direct complaint not on merits but on technical grounds and it did not consider the contents of the complaint and the case law relied upon by counsel for the applicant. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of SAEED AHMED v. ABDUL SHAKOOR (2005 P.Cr.L.J 1631) & 2021 SCMR 292.
7. Conversely learned D.P.G, and learned Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 supported the impugned orders and opposed the revision application by contending that the impugned orders were passed by the learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering all the aspects of the case; that the impugned orders are well reasoned and speaking orders, as such do not call for interference by this Court. Learned Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 further added that the applicant has no concern with the departmental promotions of respondents No.1 and 2 and is not an aggrieved person to challenge the promotion of these respondents. He further contended it is the domain and authority of the department to recall promotions etc, of its employees, and the applicant has no locus standi to call into question the issue of departmental promotions. He further added that the applicant being an Advocate has been running a construction company and inhabit to move false and frivolous applications and complaints against various employees of the different departments with malafide intentions and ulterior motives for personal gains by misusing the profession of advocacy and had sheltered in the black coat of advocacy. He further submitted that one Muhib Ali had filed such complaint against the applicant before Sindh Bar Council and the license of the applicant was suspended. He has placed on record such circular and Order of the Disciplinary Committee Sindh Bar Council. The learned counsel for the applicant however did not controvert this contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
8. A careful perusal of the impugned orders reflects that the orders are well-reasoned and speaking. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any other cogent ground legal infirmity in the impugned orders; hence, same do not call for any interference by this Court. Moreover, the applicant is not an aggrieved person to challenge the promotion of the respondents, as it is the domain of the department to recall promotions etc, of its employees; therefore, the applicant has no locus standi to call in question the issue of departmental promotions of the respondents No.1 and 2. It has come on record that the applicant being an Advocate has been running a construction company and is in the habit to move false and frivolous applications and complaints against various employees of the different departments with malafide intentions and ulterior motives for personal gains by misusing the profession of advocacy and had sheltered in the black coat of advocacy. It has also come on record that the license of Advocacy of the applicant has been suspended by the Sindh Bar Council. It is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to scrutinize the contents of the complaint, the nature of the allegation made therein supporting material in support of the accusation, the object intended to be achieved, the possibility of victimization and harassment, if any, to ensure itself that no innocent person against whom allegations are leveled should suffer the ordeal of protracted time consuming and cumbersome process of law. It is also a settled principle of law that the provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204 Cr.P.C, if read together show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the Legislature which showed its such intention by using the words “if it thinks fit take evidence of witnesses on oath”, “if any” and “sufficient grounds for any” in section 203 Cr.P.C and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. Reliance is placed in the case of Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others (2010 SCMR 1816). Furthermore, it is also a settled principle of law that everyone has a right to approach the Court for the redress of grievances but the same was subject to the condition that sufficient grounds for issuance of process is made out. In the case in hand, there were no sufficient grounds for issuance of process is made out and also there was no sufficient ground for issuance of the process considering the fact that the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands.
9. It seems that the applicant having no locus standi and not being an aggrieved person having no concern filed a frivolous complaint before the learned trial Court and wanted to drag respondents No.1 and 2 in false litigation for his personal gains with malafide intention and ulterior motives. In these circumstances, in order to curb the such practice, the instant revision applicant is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees), to be deposited by the applicant within one month hereof for High Court Bar Library. If the applicant fails to pay the costs, the same shall be recovered through land revenue arrears, and if costs are paid by the applicant, the President of High Court Bar Association Larkana shall bring the list of books to the Additional Registrar of this Court, who shall purchase the same from the recovered costs and handed over to the President of High Court Bar Larkana.
10. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is not helpful to him as facts and circumstances of the case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
11. These are the reasons for the short order dated 17.10.2022, whereby instant revision was dismissed.
Judge
Ansari