ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Revn. Appln. No.D-25 of 2008

Date of hearing

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

29.4.2009.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

3. For hearing of M.A. No.824/08.

Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Akram Shaikh, State Counsel.

---------------------

1. Accused Mouloo alias Moula Bux son of Ismail Khuhro, facing charge of making murderous attack upon a police party and committing murder of HC Shawal Khan within the jurisdiction of Police Station K. T. Mumtaz, was released on bail on the surety of applicant Ghulam Muhammad Khuhro in the sum of Rs.200,000/- which he offered on 22.5.1996.

2. The accused jumped bail and remained absent from 6.11.2001 and on the basis of statement of HC Nazir Ahmed of Police Station K.T. Mumtaz, recorded on 6.2.2002, to the effect that the accused after committing another murder of one Ghulam Akbar son of Amir Bux Khuhro on 6.6.2001 had gone underground and such F.I.R, bearing No.22/2001, had been registered against him at Police Station K.T. Mumtaz, the accused was declared absconder and proclaimed offender.

3. After service of notice upon the applicant, the trial Court by its order dated 21.10.2002, imposed penalty of Rs.200,000/- upon him and gave him period of one month for depositing the amount.

4. On revision, bearing No.D-35/2005, this Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide it afresh after holding inquiry into applicant’s plea about the death of the accused.

5. The trial Court after holding inquiry, took lenient view and reduced the penalty from Rs.200,000/- to Rs.100,000/-, on the ground that the accused had died, though it was not clear whether he had died before or after 6.11.2001 i.e. the date on and after which he did not attend the Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that there was sufficient material to show that the accused had died before 6.11.2001 and, therefore, there was no justification for imposing any penalty upon the applicant. In support of his contention, he has referred to the death certificate issued by the Nazim, Union Council Akil and the report of the S.H.O of Police Station K.T. Mumtaz showing that the accused had died on 5.11.2001.

7. It appears that the trial Court has not minutely conducted enquiry into death or otherwise of the accused. The perusal of the record and proceedings of the trial Court shows that the proceedings have not been abated against the accused. In his statement recorded on 6.2.2002, H.C Nazir Ahmed stated that the accused after committing murder of Ghulam Akbar Khuhro had gone underground. The Death Certificate of the accused issued by the Nazim, Union Council Akil, produced by the applicant and the Mukhtiarkar, Revenue, Larkana are conflicting. In such circumstances, we are constrained to remand the matter to the trial Court again for conducting minute enquiry into the death or otherwise of the accused and decide the question of penalty upon the surety as well as of the abatement of the case in the light of such enquiry. The papers of the case, based upon F.I.R No.22/2001 of P.S K.T. Mumtaz, may also be looked into and witnesses of the two cases may also be examined in the course of the fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court. The R & Ps may be returned back to the trial Court immediately.

JUDGE