Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 184/Q of 1981, decided on 16th April, 1983.

---S. 561-A--Quashing of proceedings--Prosecution evidence already having been closed, interference at such stage under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., 'held, not proper and quashing of proceedings declined.

Amir Abdullah etc. v. State 1979 P Cr. L J 29 and Muhammad Khalid v. State 1981 P Cr. L J 497 ref.

Rana Abdul Majid for Appellant.

Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan for Respondent No. 2.

Sardar Nazar Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 1983.

This quashment petition was moved by Muhammad Bashir petitioner, who is facing trial in the Court of A . C . Jaranwala, alongwith nine others in a case registered against them under section 440/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Kharianwala, on the application of Mukhtar Khan, respondent No.2. Later, on an application the other nine accused were also impleaded as petitioners.

2. The police after investigation had submitted challan against Muhammad Bashir alone. The other petitioners were placed in column No-2. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the statement of Mukhtar Khan, respondent, issued summons to the other petitioners. After their appearance, the trial started.

3. According to the application, on the basis of which F.I.R. was recorded, the allegations briefly are that the petitioners had trespassed into the sugarcane fields of the complainant and had damaged the crop by ploughing a tractor. It is stated that some of them were armed with fire-arms and when the complainant wanted to stop them, they threatened him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that against the column (Tarikh o waqat o waqua) in the F.I.R. the word (Na maloom) is mentioned. He has argued that although the complainant has named two persons to have seen the occurrence during his statement in Court, but he had not mentioned the name of any witness in the F.I.R. in spite of the fact that the F.I.R. was recorded on an application submitted by him. Learned counsel has referred to the portion of the statement of the complainant wherein he has admitted that the accused had got case registered under section 325/452/148/149, P.P.C. against his nephew and brother and that his nephew Hamid had got a case registered against the accused which has been cancelled after investigation by the police. He has referred to the portions of the statements of other P.Ws. also who have admitted some previous enmity. It is argued that nine petitioners were found innocent and were placed in column No.2 by the police. Learned counsel has also taken up the legal objection that the petitioners other than Bashir were not supplied copies of the statements under section 161, Cr. P. C . before the trial. He has also stated that the charge is defective as no time and date is mentioned in the charge sheet. It is urged that, in the circumstances, it is a case of clear abuse of process of the Court, which warrants order of quashment of proceedings. He has placed reliance on Amir Abdullah etc. v. State 1979 P C r. L J 29.

5. Learned counsel for the State/ complainant have contended that the petitioners had made an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.. which was dismissed by the trial Court and that they should have filed a revision petition against the said order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the prosecution evidence has already been closed and it will be proper that the trial Court is allowed to proceed with the case. He has cited Muhammad Khalid v . State 1981 P Cr. L J 497.

6. The record shows that the prosecution has already closed its case. In fact, the prosecution evidence was closed as far back as 1981. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of admission of the petition. It has not been mentioned even in the petition. I find myself in complete agreement with the observations made in the case cited as Muhammad Khalid v . State, at page 497 of 1981 P Cr. L J, that since the prosecution evidence has already been closed, it will not be proper to exercise powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., at this stage of the proceedings. In this view of the matter, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of with the direction that the learned trial Court shall dispose of the case within two months after the receipt o

the order.

S.G.D. 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.