ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.No.48 of 2017

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection “A”

2. For hearing of main case.

03.12.2018

                        Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicant.                                  Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3

                        Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6

                        Mr. Zahid Hussain Chandio, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 10.

                        Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

01.                  Differed.

02. The applicant by way of instant Crl.Revision.Application has impugned an order dated 25.09.2017, passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby he has dismissed the direct complaint of applicant u/s 203 Cr.PC.

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision are that as per the applicant, the private respondents in collusion with each other have managed a false entry in record of rights in respect of his landed property by way of statement, ignoring the fact that he being minor at that time was not in a position to make any statement. By maintaining so, the applicant filed a direct complaint before learned trial Court, for action against the private respondents, which was dismissed as stated above.

                        The operative part of the impugned order reads as under;

“From the perusal of material it appears that at first time Khata was changed in the year 1988 and again revenue entry was kept in the year 2014 but record is completely silent as to why complainant has not exhausted the remedy provide under the law. Neither complainant approached to the revenue officials nor filed civil suit for the above said property which shows complainant suppressed the true facts from this Court, there is noticeable delay no evidence is on record. It is admitted fact that Khata was changed and allegation of the complainant are that on the basis of fake and false documents which even otherwise not challenged before any competent court of law nor declared by the court of law fake and false as alleged”.

                  It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has dismissed the direct complaint of the applicant at very preliminary stage without lawful justification ignoring the fact that it was involving the adjudication of the case on merits. By contending so, he sought for reversal of impugned order with direction to learned trial Court to take cognizance of the offence.

                   The learned counsel for the private respondents and learned A.P.G for the State have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application by contending that the remedy available to the applicant has already been exhausted by him by way of making an application before learned Deputy Commissioner Larkana.  

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

Section 195 Cr.PC reads as under;

                        “195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance.

(a) Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants; of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

(b) Prosecution for certain offence against public justice; of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code namely sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate, or

(c) Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence; of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate”.

                        The bare perusal of above provision of law would reveal that the cognizance of the offence relating to document could only be taken on a complaint in writing of Court, which has declared such document to be false or to have been managed on account of fraud and forgery. In the instant case, no such finding has been arrived at by any of the Court (Civil or Revenue). In these premises, the learned trial Court was right to record dismissal of the direct complaint of the applicant by resorting to provision of Section 203 Cr.PC, which is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant criminal revision application, it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E

..