ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt. Petition No. S- 2855 of 2011.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For Katcha Peshi.

29.03.2012.

          Mr. Habibullah Ghauri, Advocate for petitioner.

          Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State counsel.

~~~

          This constitutional petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2011, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C was dismissed with the observations that no such offence had taken place and due to registration of F.I.R, from the proposed accused against the petitioner and others the petitioner in order to make it a counter blast has managed a false case and wanted to drag Gas company employees in it. In the impugned order the learned Justice of Peace has also relied upon the report of the SHO, who allegedly stated that no offence took place; in-fact Abdul Karim an employee of Sui Gas authorities has lodged F.I.R No. 92/2011 against the petitioner.

          I have gone through the contents of the application moved by the petitioner under section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, in which the petitioner has provided entire details in paragraph 5 & 6 to show that a cognizable offence was made out and it is further stated that he approached to the respondent No. 3 for recording his statement but it was not recorded. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondent No. 1 has filed his comments, in which he stated that he has no knowledge about the incident mentioned by the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner neither approached the answering respondent nor the then SHO for lodging the F.I.R; which shows that the statement given by the SHO before Justice of Peace was not correct, when he himself stated in this Court that petitioner never for recording his statement. The jurisdiction of Justice of Peace being a supervisory jurisdiction is to see whether the statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police officer or not and while deciding the application it is not desirable to test merits of the case and give findings that no case is made out, which can only be decided after recording statement and investigation by the police in accordance with law. If, before recording of the statement merits are dilated upon, then there will be nothing left for investigation. Learned State counsel has also not supported the impugned order. This constitutional petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 1 to record statement of the petitioner and act in accordance with law.

                                                                        Judge