2007 PLP 1012 (YLR)

GHULAM RABBANI, J.

This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 22-10-2004 passed by learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi (West) whereby the application of applicant under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The relevant facts for disposal of this revision application are that the complainant Muhammad Hassan on 25-4-2001 at about 1630 hours lodged a report with the Police Station, Mochko, Karachi (West) which was registered as Crime No.49 of 2001 under section 322/34, P.P.C. In the said report the complainant, briefly stated that his son deceased Hassan Ali along with other labourers used to work in a godown of Altaf, the present applicant herein. On 9-4-2001 in the above godown of a wall with 50 ft. long and 20/22 ft. high of co-accused Jamil Ahmed fell down on the labourers working there causing them injuries as a result whereof his above named son succumbed to the injuries and died. It is alleged that death of his son occurred due to carelessness of Jamil Ahmed owner of the wall, contractor Qadeer Ahmed and Altaf. On registration of above crime with allegations noted above, Police investigated the crime and forwarded the applicant and other accused to stand their trial under section 322/337-L and 34, P.P.C. I have heard Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Arshad Lodhi, A.A.-G., for the State and with their assistance I have examined the material referred to by both of them. The ownership of the wall in question by co-accused Jamil Ahmed has not been denied by learned Assistant A.-G. who on reading further statement of the complainant and the statement of witnesses states that nowhere from these statements it could be gathered that the present applicant in any way was responsible to bring the labourers including the deceased to work adjacent the said wall or that he was in any way responsible to have carried on any repairs. Learned Assistant A.-G. in addition to his submissions noted above has stated that co-accused Jamil Ahmad in his statement admitted that he was owner of the wall and the present applicant was not concerned with it in any way. Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that the owner of the wall was co-accused Jamil Ahmad and the contractor was another co-accused by name Qadeer Ahmed. Here, it will also be worthwhile to mention that statement of an accused, in this case of co-accused Jamil Ahmad admitting the ownership of wall in question has no legal consequences. There seems to be nothing, however, to link the appellant with commission of alleged offence. Challan against the accused stood submitted before the Magistrate of jurisdiction on 24-2-2002; no charge could be framed by learned trial Court uptill now as per statement of learned counsel for applicant, which could neither be affirmed nor denied by learned Assistant Advocate-General. Be that as it may, since nothing could be brought to my notice that prosecution possessed any material to show that the applicant is likely to be convicted and sentenced, I am left with no option but to allow this application as far as the present applicant Altaf Hussain is concerned. I therefore, set aside the order impugned herein, allow his application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and acquit the applicant. This application stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./A-15/K Revision allowed.