Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 618 of 1977, decided on 24th July 1977.

‑‑‑‑‑ Ss. 190(c) & 173 real with S. 351‑Charge‑sheet‑ColLimn No. 2 of charge‑sheet meant for showing names of persons not sent up for trial as well as those absconding‑Names of absconders, however, to be shown in red ink‑Names of applicants shown in Column No. 2 of charge‑sheet in red ink but Magistrate dropping issue of process against them to compel their attendance‑Magistrate, held, acted illegally in dropping issue of process against applicants, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon for Applicants.

This is an application under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure where in a prayer is made, that the impugned order dated 14‑6‑1977 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Mirpurkhas, directing the Magistrate to treat the applicants as absconders and not as accused persons not sent up for trial, be quashed.

The prosecution story is narrated in the impugned order and it need not be repeated herein. It would suffice to say, that the present applicants who are all women ace also alleged to have given fists and kicks blows to the complainant Muhammad Anwar.

The applicants and some male accused were sent up for trial under actions 147. 323 and 504. P. P. C. in the Court of Joint Civil Judge and F. C. M, Mirpurkhas. The names of the applicants were shown in column 2 of the charge‑sheet in red ink, which indicated that they were absconding.

The learned Magistrate before whom the charge‑sheet was first submitted issued submitted against the applicant s best later on drooped the issue of process against them for reasons not known. The case thue proceeded only against the male accused. After the evidence of material wane3M was recorded the Prosecuting Sub‑Inspector incharge of thi3 cave moved an application under section 351, Cr. P. C. read with section 190(c), Cr. P. C. praving therein that the applicants be joined as co‑accused as they had also taken part in the beating of the complainant alongwith the four male accused. By his order dated 11‑10‑1975 the learned Joint Civil Judge and F. C. M. rejected this application for reasons recorded therein. The complaisant then filed a revision application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, k1irpurkha9 who allowed the revision application and passed orders in terms material particulars whereof are mentioned in opening para. of this order.

I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon the learned counsel for the applicants.

The learned counsel contends that the story set up by the complainant is a fabricated one inasmuch as there is admitted enmity between the parties and it is not possible that the applicants who are illiterate women; would join their men‑folk in beating the complainant. He further contend 3 that the applicants were not sent up by the polite and those they could not therefore be treated as absconders.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel. There is no force in either of those contentions. The names of applicants are shown in red ink in column 2 of charge‑sheet which indicated that they are shown as absconders therein and not as accused persons not sent up for trial. It may be mentioned here that the column 2 of charge‑sheet is to contain the names of persons trot sent up for trial as well as those who were absconding. The names of absconders ‑mere however to be shown in, red ink. It was duty of the trial Magistrate to have taken note of this entry in the charge‑sheet and issued process to compel the attendance of the applicants and proceed further in accordance with law. It is obvious that the Magistrate then trying this case did not act legally in dropping the issue of process against the applicants.

The evidence recorded in this case against the male accused is not before. I am therefore unable to say whether the prosecution cease is fabricated anal the applicants are implicated falsely. Even otherwise it would not be proper evaluate the evidence so recorded at this stage as it is bound to prejudice the care of either side.

I have a perused the Impugned order. It does not call for interference." Since the applicants are shown as absconders in charge‑sheet, they may be proceeded with according to law.

In view of the foregoing reasons this application is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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