ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Criminal Revision Application No.D-232 of 2014

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For order on office objection.

2. For katcha peshi.

3. For hearing of MA No.10303/2014.

22-04-2015.

Mr. Muzaffar Ali Laghari advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari D.P.G. Sindh for the State along with Inspector Muhammad Arif Bhatti I.O of the case.

Complainant despite notice called absent.

Through this revision application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 10-12-2014 passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas whereby the application moved under section 265-K Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that while dismissing the application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court given various observations and touched the merits of the case, which creates undue apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the trial Court has made up the mind to convict the applicant; on the contrary the evidence available on record do show that the witnesses denied to identify the applicant in Court. The trial Court further observed that only three witnesses, the recorder of FIR, Magistrate who recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 2 & 3 and I.O are to be examined and the case is at final stage, therefore, the application was dismissed. It is further argued that the alleged abductees have also failed to identify the applicant even the complainant deposed that at the time of abduction faces of all the culprits were muffled. He further argued that ocular testimony available on record does not support prosecution case.

We have gone through the impugned order. The trial Court observed that the name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR and two witnesses in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements have also implicated the applicant. The recovery of part ransom amount and Kalashnikov was also effected on the pointation of the accused in presence of PW 6 so in view of the evidence available on record the trial Court dismissed the application. It is well settled that criminal case should be decided on merits after recording prosecution evidence and the statement of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. and the provision of section 265-K Cr.P.C. is not normally pressed into action for deciding the fate of criminal case.

The learned D.P.G. is also of the view that since only three witnesses are to be examined therefore the matter may be decided on merits and the trial Court rightly dismissed the application.

In view of the above, this criminal revision application is dismissed along with pending application. However, it is quite obvious that the learned trial Court will decide the case on merits after considering the entire evidence and defence plea of the accused and pass the judgment on merits. So far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the learned trial Court has touched the merits of the case while dismissing the application moved under section 265-K Cr.P.C., let us further observe that such type of findings are always of tentative in nature in which Court has to see the probability of the accused being convicted of any offence and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case and any such finding will not come in the way while deciding the case on merits by the learned trial Court.

JUDGE

JUDGE

A.C