ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Revn. Appln. No.S-80 of 2024
___________________________________________________
Date of Hearing ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
07.02.2025.
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For orders on M.A. No.43/2025.
3. For hearing of Main Case.
Mr. Suhail Ahmed Veesar, advocate for the applicant.
-----------------
Khalid Hussain Shahani, J.- The present Criminal Revision application challenges the order dated 26.11.2024, through which Direct Complaint No.33/2024 filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, under the provisions of Section 203, Cr.P.C.
2. In essence, the facts of the case, as outlined in the direct complaint, reveal that the applicant alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 14, through the payment of substantial bribes, unlawfully altered the khata pertaining to the agricultural land originally owned by the applicant's grandfather, Muhammad Achar, and his father, Ahmed Ali, as specified in the complaint. The said alterations were made in favor of accused Nos. 15 to 17. Furthermore, it is alleged that accused Moula Bux, after offering bribe payments, succeeded in having the revenue records amended to reflect ownership in the names of his minor children.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant, through his statement recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C., fully corroborated the allegations set forth in the direct complaint. Additionally, the witnesses examined during the preliminary inquiry substantiated the applicant’s claims, thereby establishing a prima facie case warranting cognizance. Despite this, the learned trial Court dismissed the direct complaint without providing substantial justification. The Counsel further emphasizes that the applicant has initiated civil proceedings contesting the fraudulent entries in the Revenue record concerning his ancestral property, which are currently under adjudication. However, he concedes that the applicant has yet to approach the revenue authorities for rectification or cancellation of the alleged falsified and fabricated entries.
4. The record reflects that the applicant presented before the learned trial Court a copy of the order dated 21.6.2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Shahdadkot, on an application submitted by Moula Bux (accused No.16 in the complaint). Through this order, the concerned Mukhtiarkar was directed to retain an entry in the revenue record based on the registered sale deed No.164, dated 16.3.2005, which was produced by Moula Bux. The sale deed indicated that the applicant’s grandfather, Muhammad Achar, had transferred the ownership of his land. Given this context, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, declined to take cognizance of the complaint, reasoning that the dispute concerning private property and its mutation falls within the domain of the revenue hierarchy, and such matters do not come under the jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption authorities. The trial Court’s evaluation of the case is reasonable, and I concur with its conclusion. The decision to dismiss the complaint aligns with the precedent established in Fayyaz Ahmed v. Adeel Ashfaque & others (SBLR 2007 Sindh 1655), which clarifies that the Anti-Corruption Police are authorized to investigate cases exclusively involving Government property.
5. Based on the foregoing facts and legal considerations, it is determined that the impugned order issued by the learned trial Court does not exhibit any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting intervention by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the present criminal revision application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine, along with the accompanying application. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to observe that the applicant is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law before the competent forum having jurisdiction.
JUDGE
Qazi Tahir PA
ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Revision No.S-80 of 2024
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on office objection “A”.
2. For Order on M.A.No.34/2025 (E/A).
3. For hearing of main case.
--------
07.02.2025
Mr. Sohail Ahmed Veesar, Advocate for the Applicant.
----------
Judge
Asghar Altaf