ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Rev. No. D- 128 of 2009

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi

25.03.2010.

Mr. Aijaz Shaikh, Advocate along with Applicant.

Mr. Mumtaz Lashari, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Durrani, Advocate, along with Respondent No.3.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for State.

Through this application the Applicant has called in question order dated 9^th October 2009 passed by Anti Terrorism Court Hyderabad, whereby the report submitted by the Investigating Officer letting off Dr. Taufique Ahmed and Abdul Hameed was accepted.

Briefly, the Applicant along with his driver was abducted on 12^th July 2009 and an FIR bearing Crime No. 319/2009 was lodged by his son on 14.7.2010 reporting such abduction. The Applicant/abductee on 20.7.2009 was relieved by the kepters on payment of ransom. Thereafter the statement of the abductee U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 2^nd August 2009, whereby he implicated Abdul Hameed by asserting that the kepters were calling each other by names of Qurban, Fida Hussain, Sonu, Zameer, Ghulam Mustafa, Waheed, Imran alias comrade, Zulfiqar, Abdul Hameed alias Mir, Muhammad Rafique alias Bagan, Akbar, Abdul Razzaque and Sajan and other armed persons used to visit him. The matter was investigated and on 01.9.2009 challan was filed showing Abdul Hameed as absconder.

It appears that on 28^th September 2009 the Applicant/abductee got his further statement recorded wherein he implicated Dr. Taufique Ahmed by asserting that just a day before his abduction said Dr. Taufique Ahmed had threatened him in the following words:-

“we see how long you will survive here”.

After implication of Dr. Taufique Ahmed the matter was reinvestigated and the supplementary challan was submitted on 09^th October 2009, whereby both the accused persons viz. Dr. Taufique Ahmed and Abdul Hameed were let off. The challan was accepted and writ of release was issued in favour of Respondent No.2, who was behind the bars, which has led the filing of instant application.

Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has contended that name of Abdul Hameed was specifically mentioned by both the abductees in their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C and there was no justification for the Investigating Officer for letting off Abdul Hameed. As to the implication of Dr. Taufique Ahmed, Counsel submits that in further statement recorded on 28^th September 2009 the abductee has implicated Dr. Taufique Ahmed by stating that a day before his abduction he was threatened by said doctor in the words reproduced above.

On the other hand, Mr. Nisar Ahmed Durrani Counsel appearing for Dr. Taufique Ahmed has contended that on a belated statement U/s 162 Cr.P.C the Applicant has tried to implicate the Respondent No.3 to settle score of professional jealousy. It was next contended that no material could be found against the Respondent and therefore, the report of the Investigating Officer, whereby the Respondent No.3 was let off, was accepted.

Mr. Mumtaz Lashari Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 Abdul Hameed states that there was 11 days’ delay in recording 161 Cr.P.C statement of the Applicant without any justification and explanation. It was further contended that no Identification Parade was held and therefore there was no justification to challan the accused.

We have heard the learned Counsel for respective parties and perused the record.

So far as the case against Dr. Taufique Ahmed is concern, we after examining the record find that except a belated statement, which was got recorded by the Applicant after 68 days of his coming on surface, nothing incriminating is available on record against Respondent No.3. Even the statement on the basis of which the Respondent No.3 has been implicated in the instant crime is not such on the basis whereof the Respondent No.3 can be charged for the abduction of the Applicant. The admitted position on the record appears to be that the Applicant and Respondent No.3 for quite some time working in the same Hospital and the element of professional rivalry and jealous is quite apparent. It also appears to be an admitted position that just a day before the abduction of Applicant he had exchange of hot words with Respondent No.3 and the above reproduced words if uttered by the Respondent No.3 it could not be stretched to the extent of abduction and for this reason the Applicant did not implicate the Respondent No.3 in his first statement. The record further reflects that the implication of Respondent No.3 on the basis of Applicant’s further statement is after an unexplained delay of two months and merely on the basis of such statement we do not see any reason to upset the report of Investigating Officer or the impugned order.

As to the case of Abdul Hameed, the statements of both the abductees reflect that they have fully implicated Abdul Hameed in their abduction and mere delay by the Investigating Officer in recording 161 Cr.P.C statements of the abductees or non-conducting of Identification Parade cannot absolve the Respondent No.2 from the charges leveled against him by the abductee. Even otherwise, no motive, whatsoever, has been highlighted in order to assert false implication of Respondent No.2.

Consequently, the order impugned to the extent of Abdul Hameed is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to call report, issue process against Abdul Hameed in accordance with law.

The application stands disposed of in the foregoing terms.

JUDGE