IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Crl. Rev. Application No.85/2011
_________________________________________________________________________
Order with signature of Judge
1. For Katcha Peshi.
2. For hearing of M.A. No.3757/11
26.05.2011
Mr. Khadim Hussain Thaheem, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, APG.
-----------------------
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J: This criminal revision application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, in Sessions Case No.179 of 2008, whereby the application under Section 360 Cr.P.C. read with Article 133 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 has been declined to the applicant.
2. It is inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of the applicant/complainant was recorded by the learned trial Court on 11.02.2010 in absence of his counsel and the same was recorded in English, which the applicant was unable to understand as the evidence had not been read-over to him in Sindhi. Hence, per learned counsel, the evidence of the applicant at the stage of the cross examination had been recorded incorrectly. Per learned counsel, in his cross examination the applicant said that "the FIR was registered at 4.30 p.m." instead of that it was recorded incorrectly that "FIR was registered at 8.00 a.m." despite this fact, the learned trial Court declined the said application. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court ignored the sensitivity of the case and failed to appreciate that this error would damage the case of the applicant. It has been contended that this modification by recalling the witness can be sought at any stage of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order may be set-aside and the application moved by the applicant may be allowed as prayed.
3. Conversely, the learned APG has vehemently opposed the grant of instant criminal revision application and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it appears that this case pertains to the year 2008 and when the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court it was at the final stage of the proceedings. As per record, examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 11.02.2010 before the IInd Additional Session Judge, Thatt and his cross-examination was recorded before Ist Additional Session Judge, Thatta on 14.07.2010, where-after the complainant moved transfer application before the High Court, which was dismissed for having been filed on flimsy ground. The learned trial Court having taken into account the facts of the case and by interpreting the scope of Article 133 (3) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C. held that the application filed by the complainant, at a belated stage and without explaining the delay, is misconceived in law and on facts, whereas the complainant through this application has attempted to improve his case and also to cause delay in the conclusion of the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Before this Court also the learned counsel for applicant could not explain as to why such correction in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination was not sought promptly at the relevant point of time.
5. In view of hereinabove facts, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has correctly exercised the jurisdiction while dismissing the application of the applicant filed at a belated stage, whereas no error or illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant, which could possibly incline this Court to set-aside or modify the impugned order.
6. In view of hereinabove facts, I am of the view that the applicant has not been able to make out a case, which was dismissed alongwith listed application vide short order on 26.05.2011 and these are the reasons of such short order as mentioned hereinabove.
J U D G E