ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 2017

(Muhammad Nadeem @ Baba vs. The State and another)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For orders on office objection at A

2. For hearing of case

3. For hearing of M.A.No.7194/2017

------------------------------

20.09.2022

Choudhry Waseem Akhter advocate for the applicant

Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

-------------------------------------------

Irshad Ali Shah J.— The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Revision Application are that the applicant after due trial was convicted under Section 420 PPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 02 years with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C for committing fraud with one lady named as Santosh Gill by obtaining from her Rs.30,00,000/- to cure his ailing son by way of spiritual treatment by learned VII- Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West vide judgment dated 31.07.2015, it was impugned by the applicant by preferring an appeal, it was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi West directing the learned trial Magistrate to call and examine certain persons as court witnesses and then to dispose of the case afresh vide judgment dated 05.07.2017, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring the instant Criminal Revision Application.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Appellate Court by ordering the learned trial Magistrate to record evidence of certain persons as a Court witnesses has attempted to fill in lacuna in case of prosecution, which is not permissible at law, therefore, the impugned judgment being illegal is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied upon cases of Dildar vs. The State through Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Quetta (PLD 2001 S.C 384) and The State vs. Tanveer-ul-Hassan and 5 others (2009 P.Cr.L.J 199).

Learned Addl. P.G for the state did not support the impugned judgment.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

Apparently, after examining the witnesses to its satisfaction, necessary for disposal of the case, the prosecution closed its side and on the basis of appraisal of evidence, so made by learned trial Magistrate, the applicant was found guilty for the said offence and was convicted and sentenced accordingly, which was impugned by the applicant by preferring an appeal. It was incumbent upon learned appellate court to have disposed of the appeal of the applicant on merit on the basis of material which was already brought on record by the prosecution. The direction issued by learned appellate court for recording evidence of certain persons as court witnesses was not justified.

In view of above, the impugned judgment is set aside with direction to learned appellate court to dispose of appeal of the applicant on merits on the basis of material already brought on record after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.

Instant Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E