ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt. Petition No. 1008 of 2009.        

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

09.12.2009.

                        Mr. Abdul Rasheed Shah, Advocate for petitioner.

                        Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi, Asstt. A.G. alongwith Mr. Yar Mohammad Rind, S.P Investigation Kashmore.

~~~

Bhajandas Tejwani, J-.     Mr. Sikander Ali Shah Advocate has files his joint power with Mr. Asif Ali Soomro on behalf of respondent No. 3, while S.P Investigation has filed his statement, in which he has narrated the same story as was disclosed by the I.O of the crime No. 312/2009 of P.S Kandhkot.

2.                     The facts in brief of the case are that one Masood Alam lodged F.I.R on 27.10.2009, with delay of about two days under section 506/2, 337-H (2), and 34 P.P.C. against present petitioner and did not disclose the name of any other person. The police conducted routine investigation; during which they involved son of petitioner, namely, Ali Raza on the basis of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the alleged witnesses recorded by the I.O and so also on further statement of the complainant, as disclosed by the I.O before this Court on 24.11.2009.

3.                     Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, states that since prosecution witnesses have implicated Ali Raza in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, therefore he was booked by the police in final charge sheet.  He further contended that charge in the case has been framed against said Ali Raza, therefore, he may be allowed to face agony of trial.

4.                     Learned Asstt. A.G. appearing for the State has frankly conceded that on the face of it, involvement of Ali Raza was result of dishonest investigation, and therefore, he supports that the case against Ali Raza may be quashed.

5.                     In compliance with the order dated 24.11.2009, the S.P Investigation, Kashmore, who is present before the Court, has submitted his re-investigation report, in which he has taken the same stand as investigated by the I.O of the case and further contended that the parties have business transaction and are known to each other and honest investigation was conducted by recording the statements of independent witnesses also; and the final charge sheet under section 506/2 P.P.C. has been submitted in the trial Court against petitioner and his son Ali Raza.

6.                     It may be observed here that when the parties are known to each other, having dispute over money transaction, and the F.I.R was lodged with delay of two days by the complainant, in which he did not disclose name of Ali Raza and only arrayed the name of present petitioner as accused of the incident, but thereafter on the basis of further statement of complainant and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by I.O after lapse of three days from the date of incident, has malafidely involved said Ali Raza, the son of the petitioner. Further statement of complainant recorded by the I.O, has no evidentiary value in the eye of law, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same for the purpose of prosecution of an innocent person.

7.                     In view of the above position, the proceedings against accused Ali Raza son of Mohammad Bux Pathan, arisen out of crime No. 312/2009 of P.S Kandhkot, pending before learned 2^nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kandhkot, are hereby quashed, while proceedings against petitioner in the same case will continue and will be decided in accordance with law.

8.                     In such situation, the learned counsel for petitioner does not press this petition, which is hereby disposed of as not pressed.

                                                                                                            Judge