ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No.D-512 of 2009

            Date                    Order with signature of Judge                           

1. For orders on Misc. NO.2277/2009.

2. For orders on Misc. NO.2278/2009.

3. For Katcha Peshi.

4. For orders on Misc. NO.2279/2009.

03/4/2009.

          Mr. Sadaat Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adnan Karim, A.A.G.Sindh.

>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<

          By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.2.2009, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South by which the respondents 5 & 6’s application under section 22-A read with Section 25 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the Station House Officer, Police Station Boat Basin was directed to record the statement of any one of said respondents, who approaches police station under section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter if cognizable case is made out, do so in accordance with law.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while passing such order, the learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the documents filed with the application and did not apply her mind to the facts and circumstances of the matter and that the order was passed mechanically.

          From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has obtained from SHO, Police Station Boat Basin comments and after going through the comments and other material on record has passed such order. In the case of Muhammad Bashir V/S Station House Officer, Okara Cantt: (PLD 2007 SC 539) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 40 of its judgment has observed as follows:

“40.Therefore, in our opinion, the only jurisdiction which could be exercised by an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. was to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable office and if it did then to direct the concerned S.H.O. to record an F.I.R. without going into the veracity of the information in question, and no more. Offering any other interpretation to the provisions in question would be doing violence to the entire scheme of the Cr.P.C. which could not be permitted.”

          No discussion on the merit of the application has at all been made by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order and to us it appears that it was not required by law to do so by it. The learned Session Judge on the face of impugned order appears to have gone through the material placed before it and also has obtained a report from SHO, Police Station Boat Basin and, therefore, we do not think that learned Sessions Judge has not applied its mind or mechanically passed the impugned order. We find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. All the pending applications are also disposed off.

J U D G E

J U D G E