ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Rev. Appln. No.S- 50 of 2018

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of main case

18.03.2019

Mr. Shabir Ali Bozdar Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Rab Dino Makwal Advocate for respondent.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional P.G

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Revision Application are that the applicant filed a direct complaint against the private respondents with an allegation that they by committing trespass have taken away his buffalos and PW Ghulam Shabir. It was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro vide his order dated 28.04.2018, the operative part whereof reads as under:

“The complainant and his witnesses seem to be interested persons being caste fellows, as such, there is possibility of falsely deposing so by his witnesses; hence they are not required to be believed blindly. The complainant seems to have leveled these false allegations after failing the proposed accused to fulfill his demand in the murder case. I am, therefore, of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case against the above named accused. Accordingly, I find no merits in this direct complaint, which is hereby dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C.”

2. The applicant being aggrieved of dismissal of his direct complaint by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, by way of above said order has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Application.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been able to make out a case for cognizance of his complaint yet it has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro without lawful justification on the basis of irrelevant observation ignoring the fact that the abductee has not yet recovered. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, with direction to take cognizance of the offence and then to proceed with it, in accordance with law.

4. Learned Addl:P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents have sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision Application by contending that the applicant in order to satisfy his old enmity with the private respondents is intending to involve them in false case.

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. In inquiry, the complainant has to make out a prima facie case for cognizance. At trial, the complainant has to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt. Inquiry could be equated with trial. In the instant case, the allegation so leveled by the complainant against the private respondents, he was able to prove by examining him and his witnesses at inquiry and it prima facie was enough for taking cognizance of the offence. In that situation, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, ought not to have dismissed the complaint of the applicant by way of impugned order, it is set aside.

7. In case of Noor Muhammad vs. State (PLD 2007 SC-09), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“Burden of proof in preliminary inquiry for issuance of process is much lighter on the complainant as compared to the burden of proof on prosecution at trial of offence---Prosecution, during trial, is to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and at preliminary stage complainant is not required to discharge heavy burden of proof”.

8. Consequent upon above discussion, the matter is remanded to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, with direction to pass fresh and appropriate order, after due hearing to all the concerned.

9. The instant Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly

Judge

ARBROHI