IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl:
Revision Application No.D- 28 of 2014
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
FOR KATCHA PESHI.
20th. August, 2015.
Mr.
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Jillani, Advocate for RespondentNo.2
Mr.
Abdul RehmanKolachi, A.P.G for State.
No one is in attendance
on behalf of applicants, no intimation received.
Learned Counsel for the
complainant submits that instant criminal revision application is not
maintainable, whereas in terms of Section 25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 appeal
is provided against the final judgment and in terms of Section 31 of
Anti-Terrorism Act any judgment or order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court by
awarding sentence, that cannot be called in question except through an appeal
as provided under Section 25 of ATC Act, 1997.
In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for complainant has
placed reliance in the case of MuhammadSabirRoshan
Vs. The State (2000 P.Cr.L J 1195)
as well as case of Muhammad ArifVs. Nazir Ahmed and others (2012 P.Cr.L.J
969).
Learned A.P.G for State
supports such contentions of learned Counsel for complainant and submits that
no appeal or revision application is maintainable against any interlocutory
order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court. Since the applicants and their Counsel
are not pursuing instant criminal revision application, whereas on last several
dates, no body attended on behalf of applicants without any intimation.
We are of the view that
applicants have lost interest to proceed the instant
criminal revision application, which is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
JUDGE
A.R.BROHI