ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Misc.  Appln.    No.230  of 2010.                                                                                                                                        

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE                            OF HON’BLE JUDGE

                                    1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.

                                    2. For Katcha Peshi.

31.1.2011.

Mr. Shamsuddin Abbasi, advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahiyo, State Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-

                        Through this Crl. Misc. Application, the applicant/accused has impugned the order dated 22.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar in Sessions Case No.332/2009, Crime No.72/2009 registered at Police Station Thariri Muhbat under section 302, 324, 452, 147, 148, 109, PPC whereby an application moved by the accused persons under section 265-K, Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

                        It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that since there is no possibility of conviction of the applicant/accused in the instant crime as neither the complainant nor other prosecution witnesses are coming forward for recording evidence. Learned counsel further states that since the complainant himself is required in criminal cases and absconding. There is no possibility that he will come forward to record his statement and the matter is lingering on this account.

                        Learned State Counsel opposed the instant application on the ground that the application moved under section 265-K, Cr.P.C before the trial Court was misconceived as the accused has been nominated in the FIR with specific role. Matter has been challaned, charge has been framed and the matter is fixed for evidence.

                        I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. It appears that no substantial ground for invoking the provision of section 265-K, Cr.P.C  has been raised by the applicant. Section 265-K, Cr.P.C can be invoked  in  cases where the charge is groundless and there is no possibility of conviction of the accused persons . The only reason available on record  appears to be that after framing of charge on 14.11.2009, no witness has been has been examined which is causing delay in to the matter. However, in my humble view, this alone cannot be the basis of acquitting accused who has been nominated for a heinous crime of murder.

                        Under the circumstances, I find no merits in the instant application, which is accordingly dismissed. However with the direction to the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter and record the evidence, after issuing  process against the prosecution witnesses, and conclude the trial preferably within four months keeping in view the National Judicial Policy.

Judge