1985 P Cr (PLP)

Shaikh Aziz‑ur‑Rehman for Applicant No.2. Abdul Wali Makhdoom for the State. Gul Zaman Khan for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 A case under section 17 (3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered by he police against respondents Nos. 2 to 7 on the F.I.R. of applicant No.2 Aurangzeb. The subject‑matter of the crime is said to be a bus, the ownership of which is claimed both by applicant Haji Ali Rehman and respondent No.2, Sultan Muhammad. After investigation the case was challaned before the Court and the XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi was seized of the case. During the pendency of the trial Haji Ali Rehman and Aurangzeb moved an application before the Home Department for withdrawal of the case on the ground that the matter has been patched up, between the parties. Home Department accorded sanction, whereupon the prosecutor made an application before the trial Court for withdrawal of the prosecution under section 494, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court i.e. XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi vide his order, dated, 11‑7‑1984 granted the application and acquitted the respondents Nos. 2 to

7. In this order the learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that the offence for which the respondents have been charged would fall under section 420, P.P.C. and not under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance referred to above. This order has been challenged by the two applicants by this revision application. Mr. Aziz‑ur‑Rehman learned counsel for applicant No.2 states that he does not want to press this revision application and it may be dismissed as such. Mr. Raja Muhammad Aslam learned counsel for applicant No.1 Haji Ali Rehman, however, states that he wants to continue with this revision application and claims to be heard. Hence he was heard. I have gone through the record. From the revision application it transpires that it was Aurangzeb who had lodged the report against respondents No. 2 to 7 and that it was he who was the aggrieved person, so far as the crime in respect of bus is concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant No.1 has however, given statement that the applicant (Ali Rehman) wants to pursue this revision application. Applicant No.1 has not mentioned in the revision application that he himself is the aggrieved person or that he was not signatory to the withdrawal application made to the Home Department. His plea is that Aurangzeb had not signed the withdrawal application. This statement is not correct because Mr. Azizur Rehman states at the bar that Aurangzeb had signed the withdrawal application and that is the reason why he does not want to prosecute this revision application. The further ground which applicant No.1 has taken in support of this revision application is that the owner of the vehicle has not been compensated to the tune of Rs. one lac. which was promised to be paid by the accused (respondents Nos. 2 to 7) in their undertaking before the 'Jirgah'. This cannot be a ground for challenging the impugned order of acquittal. If applicant No.1 has any grievance in respect of non‑compliance of the terms of undertaking, then the remedy will be a civil suit. It is admitted at the bar that Haji Ali Rehman applicant No.1 has already filed a civil suit for determination of title of the bus. For the above reasons I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11‑7‑1984. This revision application is, therefore, dismissed. M.A.K. Revision dismissed.