JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-64 of 2019.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

25.10.2021

                        Mr. Mehboob Ali Dhoongah, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for private respondents.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that FIR for offence punishable under section 334, 342, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) PPC was lodged by the appellant against the private respondents, who happened to be police personnel, for allegedly putting him under wrongful confinement and maltreatment, thereby, he sustained permanent impairment of some of his teeth.

                         On investigation, the FIR so lodged by the appellant was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class; such recommendation was not accepted by learned trial Magistrate, who vide order dated 19.09.2018 took cognizance of the incident against the private respondents and then recorded their acquittal on making of an application under section 249-A Cr.PC by them vide order dated 05.10.2019, which is impugned  by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant acquittal appeal.

                        The cognizance of the incident was taken by learned trial Magistrate, on the basis of said FIR and ancillary evidence produced by the appellant before the police during course of investigation, it mainly was for an offence punishable under section 334 PPC. As per Column No.08 of Schedule-II to Cr.PC, the offence punishable under section 334 PPC is triable exclusively by Court of Session, therefore, after taking cognizance of the incident, the learned trial Magistrate as per Sub Section (2) to Section 190 Cr.PC was under lawful obligation to have sent up the case to Court of Session for its trial in accordance with law. In these circumstances, acquittal of private respondents by learned trial Magistrate by way of impugned order passed under section 249-A Cr.PC was patently illegal. 

                        Learned counsels for the parties were not able to controvert the above said legal proposition.

                        Consequent upon above discussion, the impugned order is set-aside with direction to learned trial Magistrate to send up the case to Court of Session having jurisdiction, for its disposal in accordance with law.

                        The private respondents may join the trial, subject to furnishing fresh surety in sum of rupees twenty thousand each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

                        The instant acquittal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                               JUDGE