ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Revision.Appln.No.S-57 of 2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of M.A.No.4139/2022.

3. For hearing of main case.

Dateof hearing  : 17.02.2023.

Date of decision : 10.03.2023.

                   Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocatefor applicant.

                    Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- By way of filing instant Crl.Revision Application, applicant/complainant Muhammad Saifal Kumbhar impugns an order dated 10.09.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.259/2022 (Re.St.Vs.Dost Ali Brohi and another) outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.23/2022 registered with P.S Madeji, for offences punishable under Sections 324, 353, 401, 148, 149 PPC, by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, on his reply to show-cause notice, awardinghim compensation of Rs.100,000/- to be paid to the accused by treating his reply as unsatisfactory.

2.       Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order by reiterating the same grounds of his revision application while learned D.P.G for the State has frankly conceded to it.

3.       I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the material available on the record and the law cited at the bar with their able assistance.

4.       On meticulous analysis, it is observed that initially FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant/complainant and the same was challaned after investigation. Thereafter, learned trial Court after full dress trial acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment dated 03.09.2022, with following observation:-

“From the bare perusal of above provision of law, it is clear that the law has empowered the Magistrate to direct the complainant/informer to award compensation to accused, who dragged by him in a false and frivolous criminal case. Although this provision appears in chapter XX of Cr.P.C but the same is general in nature like certain other provisions, in the said chapter like section 245-A and 248 and in the same way, the provision under section 250 Cr.PC and the same are made available to Sessions Court in appropriate cases. In this respect reliance is placed upon a case of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Khan Versus the State and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court-5) wherein the Apex Court has ordered to pay compensation under the provision of Section 250 Cr.PC. The guidance is also taken from a recent case law (Sajjad Ali Versus VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge Karachi East and 8 others) reported at 2021 PCr.LJ-341). By concluding the discussion I am of the view that Section 250 Cr.PC is a means of restorative justice and in appropriate cases; compensation under Section 250 Cr.PC can be awarded by all criminal Courts to counterweight the suffering of accused and to discourage the false, frivolous and vexatious cases. So in exercise of powers conferred by above provisions, let show cause to pay compensation be issued to complainant for bringing the law into motion and brought this false and vexatious case on the board of this Court which shall be decided separately”.

5.       Subsequently, the reply on notice issued to the applicant/complainant by learned trial Judge, was found to be unsatisfactory which resulted in passing of the impugned order, as detailed above.

6.       The question arises here as to whether the Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge(s) have powers to invoke the jurisdiction in terms of Section 250 Cr.PC. For ready reference Section 250 Cr.PC is reproduced hereunder;

“250. False, frivolous or vexatious accusations: (1) If in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police-officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the Magistrate may, by his order of acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one, or if such person is not present direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.

(2) The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show and if he is satisfied that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious may, for reasons to be recorded, direct that compensation to such amount not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees or, if the Magistrate is a Magistrate Of the Third Class not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees as he may determine be paid, by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them.

(2-A) The compensation payable under sub-section (2) shall be recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue.

(2-B) When any person is imprisoned under sub-section (2-A) the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 the Pakistan Penal Code shall, so far as may be, apply.

(2-C) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him:

Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter.

(3) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub-section (2) by a Magistrate of the Second or Third Class to pay compensation or has been so ordered by any other Magistrate to pay compensation exceeding fifty rupees may appeal from the order, in so far as the order relates to the payment of the compensation, as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate.

(4) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (3), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided and, where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal, the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.

7.       The bare reading of above provision of law reflects that only the Magistrate in Magisterial trial is empowered to invoke Section 250 Cr.PC and not the other Courts. Moreover, the perusal of case of Muhammad Khan Vs. The State and others (PLD 2007 SC-5) relied upon by learned trial Judge, reflects that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while awarding compensation has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 250 Cr.PC read with Article 187 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the aforesaid Article empowers the Honourable Supreme Court to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court can pass such orders for awarding compensation and not the other Courts except the Magistrate in Magisterial trial as has mentioned in Section 250 Cr.PC.

8.       It is well settled principle of interpretation law that “If the words of the Statute are themselves clear and unambiguous, no more is necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such a case best declare the intentions of legislature”, as held in case of Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254).

9.       In another case of Ghulam Haider and others v. Murad through Legal Representatives and others (PLD 2012 SC 501), it is held as:-

“Where the plain language of a statute admits of no other interpretation then the intention of the legislature conveyed through such language is to be given its full effect.”

10.     For what has been discussed above, it can safely be concluded that the order of learned trial Court is without jurisdiction, therefore, the same being illegal is hereby set-aside by allowing this Criminal Revision Application.

    JUDGE