1984 P Cr (PLP)

S.S. Hamid for Appellant. Muniruddin Ahmad and A.A. Muhammadally Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1984. A direct complaint was filed by the applicant Shahim Nasir Khan son of Habib Nasir Khan against five persons namely Ghalib Imam, Professor Ainul Haque, Mst. Asmat Ara, Humera Khatoon and Lila Ram under sections 420, 406 etc. This complaint was initially filed before the Martial Law Administrator but it was sent to the Civil Judge, Thatta who issued process to accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 420, P.P.C. The process was issued on 18th March, 1978. The case was pending when an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused persons. The Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta accepted the said application and acquitted the accused on the grounds that the complaint filed was of a civil nature. The acquittal order is dated 14th May, 1980. A notice under section 250, Cr.P.C. was given to the complainant and under section 250, Cr.P.C. an order was passed on 2nd May, 1981. In the order it was directed that the complainant has to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to the accused persons within 15 days from the date of order. The fine, if recovered, be given to the accused persons in equal shares. 2. An appeal was filed in respect of the order under section 250, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta on 29th August, 1982. Thereafter the instant Revision applications were filed in this Court challenging the two orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the Sessions Judge, Thatta respectively. 3. I propose to dispose of the two Revision Applications Nos.110 and 111 of 1982 by this single judgment. 4. The allegations made in the direct complaint by the applicant Shahim Nasir Khan before the Martial Law Authorities, which was subsequently sent to the Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta were that on 25th July, 1972 one Ghalib Imam executed an agreement in favour of the complainant to sell agricultural land described in the complaint for the consideration of Rs.5,000 out of which Rs.3,500 were paid at the time of agreement. Ghalib Imam acknowledged the same and also executed a valid receipt for the said amount on the same date. Sale‑deed was prepared on 29th July, 1972 and presented to the Sub‑Registrar of Thatta for registration on 3rd August, 1972 where the balance was also paid by the complainant. But on 21st September, 1972 Ghalib Imam executed Power of Attorney in favour of Professor Ainul Haque who transferred the same to Mst. Asmat Ara and Humera Khatoon. Then after six years of the said transaction the present complaint was filed i.e. on 8th March, 1978. 5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.G. were heard. The acquittal of the respondents by the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta was on the ground that essentially the complaint was of civil nature and did not involve any element of criminal nature and that the respectable persons including the ladies and the professor were being dragged to attend the Court from 1978 to 1980. One of the respondents was the Principal of Government College, Ratodero from where he used to attend the Court and others used to come from Karachi. This complaint was hanging fire since many years and it made no progress. The statement of the complainant was recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. on 18th March, 1978 when the process were issued. The facts mentioned in the complaint and the statement made under section 200, Cr.P.C. were examined by the trial Court who acquitted the respondents. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of acquittal stating that the complaint lingered on for number of years amounted to harassment. No crime was involved. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sibghatullah Hameed and also Mr. A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G. I am of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta rightly acquitted the respondents and that the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta in appeal rightly upheld the judgment of the Civil Judge in respect of the acquittal. 6. As regards the fine under section 250, Cr.P.C. It was argued that the necessary ingredients to enforce an order of fine under section 250 Cr.P.C. is that the complaint should not only be false but also frivolous and vexatious. The falsehood of the complaint coupled with its being frivolous and vexatious is pre‑condition of the levy of fine and compensation and is spirit of the section 250, Cr.P.C. Besides the amount of Rs.5,000 levied against the applicant is exorbitant. The learned Asstt,A.‑G. does not support the order of the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta in respect of the fine. The complaint by its nature was intended to exercise pressure on the respondents in respect of a civil right and the complaint did not spell out any crime committed with 'mens real by the respondents. It was, therefore, the respondents were acquitted in pursuance of the section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. It was rightly done. The order with regard to fine is unwarranted as there is no finding that the complaint is both, false and vexatious. 7. In view of the above, I hereby set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Thatta dated 29th August, 1982 upholding the fine under section 250 Cr.P.C. The two Revision Applications are accordingly disposed of with no order as to the costs. S. G. D. Order accordingly