Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL HAMEED VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 902
1988 M L D 902
[Karachi]
Before Allohdino G. Memon, J
ABDUL HAMEED‑‑Applicant
versus
THE STATE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.113 of 1987, decided on 8th November, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑--
‑‑‑Ss. 249‑A & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406‑‑Orders passed by Trial Court under S. 249‑A and revisional Court‑‑Process issued by Trial Court after preliminary enquiry‑‑No further evidence recorded‑‑No illegality pointed out regarding two orders passed by Courts below‑‑Enough material produced before .Trial Court showing complainant having misappropriated funds‑‑Trial Court giving cogent reasons for acquittal of accused‑‑Additional Sessions Judge passing elaborate order in revisional jurisdiction‑‑No illegality committed by Courts below‑‑Case found not fit for interference under, S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in circumstances.
Mohammad Rafiq Khanzada for Applicant.
Ahsanali T. Khawaja for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Imam Bux Shaikh for the State.
Date of hearing: 8th November, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an application under section 561‑A Cr.P.C, for quashment of orders passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate No. IX South Karachi on an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and acquitting the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South, Karachi, dismissing the revision application filed by the present applicant.
The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant filed a direct complaint under section 506 (1), P.P.C. before the learned A.C.M. No. IX, South, Karachi, who after recording the statements of the complainant and two witnesses issued process against the respondents. After service of process the respondents appeared before the trial Court and one of them namely Mohammad Hussain raised an objection that his name was not Hussain All but his name was Muhammad Hussain on which the complainant/applicant moved an application for amendment/correction of his name. The respondents also filed an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and prod iced number of documents in order to show that the allegations against them were false. The learned A.C.M. after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, allowed the application moved under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and acquitted the respondents.
The applicant filed a Revision application before the learned Session" Judge, Karachi (South) which came up before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, (South) Karachi, and the same was dismissed on 14‑2‑1987. The present application has been filed for the quashment of the above two orders.
I have heard Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Khanzada, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ahsanali T. Khawaja, learned counsel for the private respondents; and Mr. Imam Bux Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the State.
The only point raised by Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Khanzada was that since the process was issued by the A.C.M. after holding preliminary enquiry, he could not dismiss the. complaint without recording evidence. No other point has been raised nor any illegality has been pointed out with regard to two orders passed by the Courts below. I have gone through the orders passed by the A.C.M. and the I learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South. The order passed by the A CA s, shows that enough material was produced before him by respondent Ali Akbar to show that it was the complainant/applicant who had misappropriated his funds. Even the application moved by the applicant himself with regard to amendment of name of respondent Mohammad Hussain further shows that the applicant was not sure about the name of respondent/accused Mohammad Hussain. The A.C.M. has given cogent reasons for acquittal of respondent, and' even the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has passed an elaborate order missing Revision application. Since there is no illegality committed by the two Courts below, I do not consider it a fit case to interfere under section 561‑A. Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed.
SA./A‑277/K. Dismissed.