2001 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH WADHAYO ‑‑‑ Applicant, Versus WALI MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Roshan Essani, J |
| Parties | ALLAH WADHAYO ‑‑‑ Applicant, Versus WALI MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Roshan Essani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH WADHAYO ‑‑‑ Applicant, Versus WALI MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 200, 203, 403 & 439‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.132‑‑‑Autrefois acquit, autrefois convict; principle' of‑‑ Dismissal of complaint ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Complaint earlier filed by complainant, was withdrawn on the ground that an amicable settlement had taken place between the parties‑‑‑After withdrawal of the complaint, another complaint was filed by the complainant under same provisions of law containing the same facts‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the said complaint‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Withdrawal of earlier complaint would operate acquittal of accused and complainant was debarred from filing the second complaint‑‑‑Second complaint on same facts was not maintainable under S.403, Cr.P.C. as well as under Art. 132 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and also on principle of autrefois acquit autrefois convict‑‑‑Just and proper order of Trial Court dismissing second complaint could not be interfered with in revision by High Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 200 & 203‑‑‑Dismissal of complaint‑‑‑No requirement of law that the Court on receipt of a direct complaint must hold preliminary enquiry‑‑‑If a prima facie case was made out, Court could take cognizance of the same after examining the complainant on oath and if no such case was made out, Court was competent to dismiss the same‑‑‑Preliminary enquiry was meant to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the fact disclosed in the complaint‑‑ Preliminary enquiry, however, was not a condition precedent for dismissal or taking cognizance. Athar Iqbal Shaikh for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
By this criminal revision application, the applicant Allah Wadhayo has assailed the order, dated 29‑4‑2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur, whereby the complaint of applicant was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that on 5‑5‑1998 the applicant filed direct complaint against respondents Wali Muhammad, Akbar Kamboh and Sikandar Ali under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. The complaint was brought on record by order, dated 21‑8‑1998. Pursuant to the process issued by the trial Court, the respondents appeared and on 27‑9‑1999, the complainant withdrew the complaint on the ground that an amicable settlement has taken place between the parties. Subsequently, the applicant filed another complaint under the same provisions of law containing same facts except with addition in paragraph 12 to the effect that the respondents have demanded Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification. The trial Court dismissed the complaint by impugned order, dated 29‑4‑2000. The order is reproduced herein below in extenso:‑ "Perused the complaint and statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. Prior to this complainant has filed a similar complaint on 5‑5‑1998, which was brought on record vide order, dated 21‑8‑1998. The accused persons were served but the complainant on 27‑9‑1999 withdrew his complaint on the ground that they had entered into a compromise. The present complaint accordingly is dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C." The perusal of the order reproduced hereinabove clearly shows that it is just, proper and does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, nor requires any interference. The applicant was debarred from' filing the IInd complaint. The withdrawal of case operates acquittal. Thus; the second complaint on same facts is not maintainable under section 403, Cr.P.C. as well as Article 132 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) so also on the principle of (autrefois acquit autrefois convict). The contention of the learned counsel that the trial Court dismissed the complaint without holding preliminary enquiry is misconceived. It is not the requirement of law that the Court on receipt of a direct complaint must hold preliminary enquiry. If a prima facie case is made out, Court can take cognizance of the same after examining the complainant on oath and if no prima facie case is made out, Court is competent to dismiss the same. The preliminary enquiry is meant to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the facts disclosed in the complaint. For dismissal or taking cognizance, preliminary enquiry is not condition precedent. The criminal revision application stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑110/K Revision dismissed.