IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 36 of 2023.

Nawab Khan Khoso.                                                                        ……..…..Applicant.

Versus

Mukhtiarkar Kashmore and others.                                              ….......Respondents.

            Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                    11.01.2024.

Date of order:                       11.01.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J- Through this revision application, applicant Nawab Khan Khoso has assailed order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby a direct complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed.

            2.         The facts given rise to filing of instant criminal revision application are that applicant Nawab Khan Khoso filed a direct complaint in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana, to the effect that he owned certain agricultural land, which he intended to transfer in names of his children, as such he approached accused/ officials of revenue department for issuance of sale certificate, which was agreed to be issued to him against illegal gratification of Rs.200,000/-, which were received by accused. It is further alleged that, on the contrary the accused persons changed the record of rights in favor of other person after taking bribe from him.

            3.         Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law and the facts, as such not sustainable and liable to be set aside, as it has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the learned trial Judge without adopting the proper procedure as provided by Section 200 of the Cr.P.C, has straight away dismissed the direct complainant. Learned counsel further contended that the learned trial Judge did not bother to record statement of the applicant/ complainant and or any of his witnesses, but he simply issued notices to the accused persons and after hearing them passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint of applicant.   

            4.         Conversely, learned Addl. P.G. after going through the impugned order does not support it and very candidly concedes for grant of instant revision application.

            5.         A bare perusal of the impugned order reflects that, the learned trial Judge has straight away dismissed the complaint of the applicant without adopting the proper procedure, as provided by Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, which provides complete mechanism to deal with direct complaint. The provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C, are mandatory in nature and it provides that, at the beginning the complainant shall be examined upon oath at-once, and substance of the examination (statement) shall be reduced in writing and shall be signed by the complainant and also by the presiding officer of the Court. The preliminary proceedings/ enquiry was also supposed to be carried out. However, in the instant case, neither complainant nor any of his witness was examined upon oath, or any preliminary proceedings/ enquiry was made, before passing of the impugned order whereby the complaint was dismissed.

            6.         In view of foregoing, the impugned order appears to be not sustainable under the law and therefore is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, instant criminal revision application is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial) Larkana, is set-aside with directions to learned trial Judge to decide the matter afresh by adopting the proper procedure as provided by Section 200 Cr.P.C.

                                                              Judge

Ansari