ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Criminal Revision Application No.S-75 of 2011

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

10-10-2011

Mr. Attique-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the applicant along with Applicant.

Mr. Bashir Ahmed Rahu, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 8.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, A.P.G Sindh along with Inspector Fida Hussain, DSP Hala and SIP Gul Hassan Unar (Rtd.).

……….

          Through this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 26-04-2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.100 of 2011, whereby applicant and others have been directed to pay Rs.20,000/- jointly to the each detenue as compensation within a week.

          The facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision Application are that application under section 491 Cr.P.C was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in respect of a wrongful confinement of 07 detenues, following which, C.M.O of the Sessions Court was appointed as Raid Commissioner who conducted raid at PS Bhitshah and found detenues in wrongful confinement without any entry etc. However, later on detenues were set at liberty and the applicant and SHO PS Bhitshah were directed to pay compensation to the detenues in above terms.

          Per learned counsel at the time of raid neither the applicant was posted as SHO nor Incharge of the Police Station Bhitshah. He further contended that applicant has been condemned unheard as neither he was provided an opportunity of hearing nor he was heard before passing impugned order.

          Conversely Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, learned A.P.G assisted by Mr. Bashir Ahmed Rahu, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 8 submitted that though impugned order reveals that the applicant as well as SHO were appeared before the Sessions Judge on previous date and subsequently they chosen to remain absent, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant in respect of violation of law and natural justice has no force.

          Heard. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that in 491 Cr.P.C proceedings, present applicant as well as SHO put their appearance on one date and subsequently on 25-04-2011 they chosen to remain absent. Such conduct on the part of the applicant prima facie suggests that he intentionally and deliberately remained absent. In view of above, I am of the considered view that no violation of law and justice has been made. With regard to his second contention that at the time of raid neither the applicant was SHO nor Incharge of PS Bhitshah, it has no force as the memo of application U/S: 491 Cr.P.C reflects that present applicant has been arrayed as one of the respondents and in para No.5 of the application U/S: 491 Cr.P.C it has been specifically alleged that the detenue Photo and others were arrested by the SHO and present applicant while they were present at their lands.

          In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant Criminal Revisions Application, which is accordingly dismissed.

          JUDGE

A.C