Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 467 of 1969, decided on 23^rd December 1969.

, Ss. 203 & 344‑Dismissal of complaint‑Complainant pursuing case throughout its protracted course seeking adjournment on date fixed for evidence‑Telegram and application seeking adjournment supported by medical certificate of illness received in trial Court---Complainant also filing petition for summoning of his witnesses earlier‑Orders of lower Courts dismissing complaint as founded on baseless charge set aside and Court directed to proceed with case.

Perviaz Akhtar for Petitioner.

Kh. Sultan Ahmad and Malak Abdul Hamid for A. G. for the State

This revision petition is directed against the order of Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, dated 13th of December 1968, whereby he armed the order of the" Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Leiah, dated 3rd of April 1968, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner filed against the respondents under sections 148, 342, 427 and 447 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

2. A perusal of the file shows that the complaint was filed on 14th of October 1966. The accused were summoned on 17th of October 1966, and the prosecution evidence was summoned for 11th of November 1966. Before this date could reach, the case stood transferred to the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Leiah. He passed an order on 22nd of December 1966, summon ing the complainant in the case. The complainant appeared on 2nd of January 1967, and the accused were summoned for 19th of January 1967. The accused did not appear on the date fixed. They were again summoned for 2nd of February 1967. On this latter date, four accused appeared and the others were absent. Warrants were issued against them for 17th of February 1967. On 17th of February 1967, the complainant and the accused were present. The prosecution evidence was summoned for 4th of 'March 1967.

3. It appears that a revision petition had been filed in the Sessions Court against the summoning of the accused persons. The file remained with the Sessions Judge till 6th of December 1967, and before this date the case being adjourned from time to time.

4. The parties were summoned for 22nd of December 1967. Nobody appeared on this date and the case was adjourned twice to secure the presence of the parties. On 27th of February 1968, the complainant was present but one of the accused Muhammada was absent. The Presiding Officer was also absent. The case was adjourned to 21st of March 1968, for summoning of Muhammad accused. On 21st of March 1968, the complainant was not present and an application was moved before the Court that his absence be excused because of his illness. The case was then adjourned to 25th of March 1968. The Court passed an 1 order on that date that the complainant should either summon the witnesses or bring them with him. It was further observed that this was the last opportunity being given. The case was then adjourned to 3rd of April 1968. A telegram was received in the Court on 2nd of April 1968, requesting the adjournment of the case. The Court passed an order on 3rd of April 1968, observing that the complainant was evading to produce evidence and that the charge appeared to be groundless. We also find from the file that the complainant also sent an application dated 2nd of April 1968, along with a medical certificate in which it was stated that the complainant was suffering from pleurisy and was not able to attend the Court.

5. The above narration of facts shows that the file remained for a long time before the Sessions Judge but on almost all the hearings the complainant was present. It was only on 25th of March 1968, that the petitioner was given the first opportunity to produce his evidence. We also find from the record that the petitioner had applied for summoning of evidence on 24th of February 1967. It appears that this application in which the petitioner has specifically named his witnesses and had mentioned the record which they were expected to bring, was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate when he passed the order of dismissal of the complaint.

6. In my view, the learned Magistrate was wrong in dismis sing the complaint on the ground that the charge was groundless, Actually, the petitioner did his best to pursue the case and had sent a telegram in advance which had been received in Court on 2nd of April 1968, asking for the adjournment of the case. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct that the case shall be proceeded with and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to summon his evidence. The case shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.