Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 135 of 1974, decided on 6th June, 1981.

--- S. 561‑A ‑‑ Quashment of proceedings ‑ Complainant not appearing in Court despite notices and appearing to have lost interest in prosecution of case and conviction of accused found doubtful--- Resumption of trial after lapse of over eight years, held, would serve no useful purpose‑Proceedings quashed.

Sh. Inayat Ali for 'Petitioner.

Nemo for the Complainant.

Ch. Abdul Nabi for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 6th June, 1981.

This is reference made under section 438, Cr. P. C. by the learned District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, with the recommendation that the order dated 31st March, 1973 whereby the accused respondents were summoned in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Syed Imtiaz Hussain Shah against them by the‑learned Magistrate be set aside.

2. The facts relevant to this case are that on a complaint lodged by Syed Riaz Hussain Shah against the accused that they had taken into possession the jeep of Nazar Hussain Shah, his cousin, without lawful authority, the learned Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence and summoned the accused. The order was challenged in revision petition before the District Magistrate who referred the case to this Court under section 438, Cr. P. C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the jeep No. 3533/RN was taken into possession by the Police of Shedani Police Station, under section 550, Cr. P. C. in pursuance of the F. I. R. No. 59 of 1970 dated 13th May, 1970 lodged at Police Station, Chhachran Sharif wherein it was alleged that the same was used for abduction of Mst. Mannan by the accused persons in that case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the taking‑over of the jeep by the accused was bona fide in discharge of their duties. It was also submitted that the ease pertains to the year 1974 and in case the trial is resumed against the accused it would be sheer abuse of the process of Court.

5. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant despite notices sent on the given address of the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the State could not seriously controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the accused‑respondents and the learned State counsel. I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served to order resumption of trial of this case at this stage after lapse of over eight years from the date of occurrence in this case. There is no likelihood of the conviction of the accused as the complainant appears to have lost interest in the prosecution of this case. Moreover, the jeep No. 3533/RN was taken into possession by the local police of Shedani Police Station in pursuance of a case registered at Police Station, Chhachran Sharif. Prima facie, therefore their action was in accordance with law. The reference submitted by the learned District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order dated 21st March. 1973 summoning the accused persons by the learned Magistrate is set aside and proceedings quashed.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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