O R D E R S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No.D-56 of 2011

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

1. For orders on M.A No.1911/2011 (E/A)

2. For Katcha Peshi

29.09.2011

Mr. Sobhraj L.P. advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Shahani, State counsel.

-------

Shahid Anwar Bajwa, J. FIR No. 124/2010 was recorded on 27.10.2010 at Police Station, Nasirabad for offence allegedly committed on 21.10.2010. Complainant was one Kantesh Kumar. He stated that he was sitting at his Rice Sheller when the present applicant came there and stated that he had been sent by Sikandar Ali for making a demand of Rs.4 millions and if this amount is not paid the complainant would be abducted and murdered. Upon refusal by complainant, Kamaluddin is said to have reduced the demand to Rs.25 Lacs and when the same was also refused he is alleged to have given threat that if this money is not paid the complainant will be abducted and murdered. After giving threat, said Kamaluddin went away.

2. Application under section 193, Cr.P.C was filed by the applicant which application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.01.2011. Applicant challenged that order by filing Criminal Revision Application No.D-09 of 2011 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.5.2011. Thereafter another application under section 193, Cr.P.C was filed by the present applicant in the trial Court and it was stated that the previous revision application was dismissed by this Court with the observation that let the case proceed and evidence come on record. Thereafter in the trial, evidence of the complainant and his witness Ameer Bux was recorded. After evidence of two witnesses was recorded, complainant again filed an application under section 193, Cr.P.C. and that application has been dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 24.8.2011. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision application.

3. When the first revision application was dismissed the following was observed by a Division Bench of this Court, in its order.

“6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also examined the material available on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the F.I.R is silent about the number of cell phone of co-accused Sikander Ali alias Sikoo, who is said to be criminal. The F.I.R is delayed by seven days, and there is no plausible explanation offered by the complainant, though place of vardat is situated in Nasirabad town and the police station is also situated in the same town. It is also admitted fact that respondent No.1 is businessman having rice Sheller at Nasirabad town and so also the complainant. We have also observed that due to business rivalry false cases are registered in order to force or pressure other party not to continue his business. We have also noted that a joint investigation team has investigated the case and came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence against respondent No.1, hence his name was kept in column No.2 of the challan. We have also examined law cited by learned counsel for applicant; the facts of the cited cases are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Consequently, we find no merits in this revision, which is dismissed as such”.

4. We have reproduced the above observation of Division Bench of this Court. When the revision application was dismissed vide order dated 26.5.2011 learned counsel has not been able to point out as to what are the new circumstances on the basis of which a different view can be taken. Consequently, this criminal revision application is dismissed.

Judge