Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3013 1970 SLD 3013 = 1970 PCRLJ 56
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 1967, decided on 24th May 1969.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 9. Kazi Akhtar, A. A.-G. for the State.

KHADIM HUSSAIN-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE AND 8 OTHERS--Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 202, 203

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 202 & 203--Com plaint, dismissal of Magistrate, in dismissing a complaint, can only rely on result of enquiry held under S. 202-Magistrate while direct ing preliminary enquiry simultaneously summoning accused; allowing counsel of accused to appear in preliminary enquiry and dismissing complaint on basis of copies of document, produced at accused's instance and accepted in flagrant disregard of Ss. 64 & 65, Evidence Act-Orders dismissing complaint, held, illegal and set aside--Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 64 & 65. Saeed Wahid Bux Shah v. State P L D 1964 Kar. 316 rel. Appellant (Produced in custody). Dates of hearing : 9th and 23rd May 1969.   JUDGMENT This is a revision application against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar dated 30th November 1966. 2. The dispute in this application relates to a building owned by the Municipal Committee Shahdadpur, in Shahdadpur. The Municipal Committee has rented out the said building as shops and there is a dispute between the applicant and the first opponent about one of the shops. Originally the shop was leased to the first opponent, but according to the applicant, about two years before the date of the occurrence, it had been sublet to him and he was running a hotel in the shop. The Municipal Committee wanted to demolish the building and the applicant tried to establish has independent title over the shop and moved the Municipal Committee in this respect. Therefore, according to the applicant the first opponent was annoyed and on 22nd June 1965 at about 9-30 p. m., the first opponent and the other opponents went armed to the said shop and, damaged it by trying to demolish it and also robbed the utensils of the applicant and a cash box of the applicant which was lying in the shop. The applicant was not in the shop when the occurrence took place, but he heard of the occurrence and rushed to the shop and saw the opponents demolishing the shop and taking away his goods. Therefore, he went to the police station to file the complaint, but because of the influence of the first opponent, the F. I. R. was not recorded till the following morning.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register