IN THE COURT OF (NAME OF JUDGE), ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY
Ae (petitioner) Versus aa
Etc.
Criminal
Revision No.00-10 of 0000.
Date of
Institution 23.07.0000.
Dated of Decision 18.09.0000.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner filed criminal
revision impugning the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, (CITY)
dated 00.07.0000 whereby, learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the complaint at
the initial stage after recording the cursory evidence.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner filed a private complaint, in which evidence was
produced and the learned Judicial Magistrate without any speaking order and
without any reasoning rejected the complaint, hence, while accepting the
criminal revision, the learned Judicial Magistrate may be ordered to summon the
respondents/accused for further progress in the case.
3. Preliminary arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner/complainant lodged a complaint
under sections 452, 506, 380, 148, 149 PPC against the officials of
FESCO/WAPDA, alleging the occurrence on 00.00.0000, on 16.07.0000. The
statement of complainant and Muhammad were got recorded before the Magistrate
and copies of the FIRs were also appended which were got registered by FESCO in
respect of theft of electricity against the complainant. The complainant in his
cursory statement alleged that after Maghrab prayer on 00.00.0000 WAPDA officials
entered into the house and asked him in respect of theft of electricity and
they disconnected the connection, gave beating to his son and also extended
threats while taking out pistol by Assistant Manager Operation. Witness
asserted that respondents came at about 7.00 pm and by scaling over the wall
they entered into the house of the complainant and disconnected the meter. That
they also slapped the son of complainant and during the occurrence Rs.7000/-
were also taken away. The other cursory
witness was examined, who mentioned date of occurrence as 19.08.0000 and as per
his statement, 5/6 persons knocked the door of the complainant entered into the
room and on hue and cry, they came out and when the complainant’s son also came
out, they gave slaps to him.
5. When the
cursory evidence of the complainant is analyzed, it is full of contradiction.
The complainant himself stated that 8/10 persons knocked the door and
thereafter entered into the house, whereas, cursory witness No.2 contradicted
this version of the complainant and asserted that the accused entered into the house
while scaling over the wall. As per the statement of cursory witness No.3, the person entered
into the house after knocking it and when hue and cry was raised, they came out
and on the outer side they slapped son of the complainant. In respect of
physical beating and injury to son of the complainant, there is no M.L.C. on
the record. Even otherwise, it cannot be believed after registration of case of
theft of electricity by FESCO authority against the petitioner in the year 2009,
that he would have kept mum for a period of four years. The complaint has been
introduced after lapse of four years, which is not believable in the ordinary
circumstances. It appears that after registration of criminal cases by FESCO
against the complainant for theft of electricity, this complaint was filed as a
counter blast and the evidence produced by complainant is inconsistence and not
inspiring any confidence, hence, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate
rejecting the complaint is quite proper and legal. Finding no force in criminal
revision it is dismissed in limine. Copy of this judgment is sent to the
learned Judicial Magistrate for information. File be consigned to record room
after its due completion.
Announced.
00.00.0000.
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment