1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 323 & 506‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Private complaint tried by Magistrate‑‑Trial Court, is competent to entertain and decide matter and objection to jurisdiction is misconceived. S. Imdad Hussain Kazmi and Ch. Abdur Rashid Memon for Petitioner. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for the Complainant. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Dates of hearing: 14th and 20th February, 1988. The petitioner, Adal Hussain, has moved this criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. against his conviction recorded under section 323, P.P.C. and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment vide the judgment dated 10‑7‑1987 passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Khurshid Ahmad who is father of the petitioner Adal Hussain, filed a criminal complaint against him under section 323/506, P.P.C. before the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi saying that the petitioner was debarred of the properties by him because of his misconduct and misbehaviour. On 20‑8‑1985 at about 6‑00 a.m. the petitioner gave a thrashing to his father on his head, back, hands and legs. The complainant was saved on the intervention of the prosecution witnesses. He was medically examined on 21‑8‑1985 and thereafter he lodged the report with police. On 29‑8‑1985 in the evening time again, the petitioner gave a beating to the complainant and issued threats to him that he will be done to death. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the petitioner under section 323, P.P.C. and accordingly he was sentenced to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Rawalpindi vide his judgment, dated 26‑7‑1987. The complainant also filed a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence of the petitioner which revision was also disposed of alongwith the appeal referred to above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is not an iota of evidence to justify the conviction and sentence so awarded by the learned Courts below to him. It is next forcefully contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain and decide the complaint. In fact the matter should have been referred to Conciliation Court for trial of the petitioner: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that there is ample evidence produced by the prosecution to justify the conviction and sentence. It is urged by the learned counsel that unfortunately, the petitioner is the son of the complainant and as‑such he has given uncalled for beating to his own father.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Khurshid Ahmad, complainant, P.W.1, Abdul Jabbar P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3. Abdul Jabbar P.W.2 stated that on 20‑8‑1985, early in the morning he was taking his breakfast in his house, when he heard an alarm and was attracted to the spot and saw that the petitioner Adal was giving a beating to his father. Muhammad Iqbal PW.3 stated that he saw that altercation took place between the petitioner and his father. The complainant was also medically examined and as many as five simple injuries were found on his person. The petitioner while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him. He also produced two defence witnesses, namely, Munir and Mashkoor. I am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the petitioner inasmuch as there is a specific motive for commission of the crime and the motive is that the petitioner was declared debarred of the entire property owned and possessed by the complainant because A of his misconduct and misbehaviour. The incident is proved by the independent and reliable witnesses. The petitioner is the real son of the complainant. This is unfortunate that the petitioner has given beating to his own father which is highly objectionable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint is, misconceived in law and facts of the case. The learned trial Court was competent B to entertain and decide the matter and I do not find anything wrong with the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./A‑461/L Petition dismissed.