1. SALMAN ANSARI, J.---The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision Application under sections 435, 439,Cr.P.C. Against a show-cause-notice dated 15-10-2008 issued by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, in Sessions Case No,64/2007 issuing out of Direct Complaint No,1 of 2006 under sections 302, 114, 34 P.P.C, by which the applicant and other co-accused were called upon to show cause as, to why they may not be remanded to judicial custody as the offences fell under the above mentioned provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. ' Briefly the facts as narrated in the revision application being that the respondent Ghulam Mustafa filed a Direct Complaint before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Sakro Gharo, which was transferred by the Sessions Judge Thatta on 13-4-2006 to the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta. After recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses the complaint was registered against the applicant and other accused by order dated 11-5-2007 and BWs in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 were issued against the applicant and co-accused for 305-2007. The surety was furnished and since then the applicant and the other accused are regularly attending the trial Court for the last one and half year's on each and every date of hearing. On 15-10-2008 the impugned show-cause notice was issued, hence apprehending the remand to judicial custody the present revision application has been filed.
3. ' It is argued on behalf of the applicant that without appreciating the fact that there was no requirement for issuance of the show-cause notice as surety had been provided, the bailable warrants were issued in the first instance by the trial Court merely relying upon a Single Bench judgment as reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 505, Noor Nabi and others v. The State; the learned trial Court without considering other reported judgments on the same point where in direct complaint cases section 304, Cr.P.C. Is to be read with section 91, Cr.P.C. And not with section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has relied upon Mazhar Ali Shah v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2359, which the Honourable Supreme Court had in Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State 2005 SCM R 784 had been pleaded to approve.
4. ' Hence the show-cause notice be set aside after examining the legality and propriety of the same.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in non-bailable offence as shown in the IInd Schedule to the Cr.P.C. The Court can issue NBWs. Where bailable warrants have been issued in the first instance there is no bar to issue NBWs if during the trial the trial Court comes to conclusion that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence. Hence show-cause notice dated 15-10- 2008 is proper and legal and as held in 2005 PCr.LJ 505, section 91, Cr.P.C. Is read with section 496 to section 502, Cr.P.C. And an accused on a direct Complaint can not be released without first passing an order under section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, realizing that the accused had wrongly been released on their furnishing surety after bailable warrants were issued, the learned trial Court had rightly issued the show-cause notice which shows the propriety of the said show-cause notice otherwise the trial Court could have remanded the accused straightaway to judicial custody without issuing a show-cause notice.
6. ' Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. ' Both have relied upon the citations of the Superior Courts. In 1986, PCr.LJ 2359 (Lahore) Mazhar Hussain Shah v. The State, while discussing sections 497, 498, 204 and 91, Cr.P.C. It was observed as under:-- "In response to summons issued by trial Court in a private compliant accused person appearing before Trial Court and moving for bail which was refused---After appearance of accused in Court, trial Court, held was required to proceed under S. 91, Cr.P.C. And to direct accused to execute bonds with or without sureties for appearance in Court---As accused were not asked to execute bonds they could not be said to have failed to do so---Observation of trial Court that case was of pre- arrest bail was found to be misconceived and accused were found to be entitled to bail in circumstances."
8. "Sufficient ground for proceedings" in a complaint case S. 204, Cr.P.C. Held, could not be equated with existence of reasonable grounds for believing that accused was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for ten years."
9. 'In 2005 SCM R 784, S.C. Syed Muhammad Firdous and others v. The State, it was held as under:-- "A perusal of the above order indicates that prima facie, learned trial Court failed to take into consideration that the case of petitioner Raja Munnawar Hussain, Amjad Javed Saleemi is also at par with the case of Dr. Muhammad Azam, therefore, they have also not been summoned and once the Court decided to proceed against them, then their bail should have not been cancelled, as they were liable to be dealt with under section 91, Cr.P.C. In view of the judgment in the case of Mazhar Hussain Shah v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2359."
10. ' In both the above referred cases the case of the appellant/petitioner was one where the question of pre-arrest bail was decided by the superior Courts hence the findings of both the superior Courts would not cover the present case in all its facts and circumstances considering that an in- depth and very elaborate judgment was given as reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 505, where it was discussed as under:-- "In pursuance of the BWs the accused appeared before the Court but. The Court released them on executing bond with surety, without passing any order granting bail to them as required under section 497, Cr.P.C.
11. ' Important question has been raised in this application as to whether the Court issuing process under section 204, Cr.P.C. In a direct complaint, is required to release the accused merely on bond as required under section 91 of Cr.P.C. Or a bail is to be granted within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C. When the accused involved in non-bailable case appear before the Court issuing the process against them.
12. ' The Section 91 is appearing in the Part III, Chapter VI, Cr.P.C. Which contains general provisions relating to the process to compel appearance of any person. This Chapter would deal with any process issued against any person under the Code. Thus, under this Part of Code, general powers have been given to the Court to deal with the issue of process and its related matters."
13. "A perusal of Criminal Procedure Code further reveals that there are supplementary provisions which have been enacted to supplement the other provisions which require further addition or clarification, Part IX of Criminal Procedure Code deals with such provisions and its heading in "
14. Supplementary provisions". The word "supplementary" is derived from the word "supplement". The dictionary meaning of word "supplement" is defined in Chamber's Dictionary as under:-- "Supplement sup'li-ment, in that which supplies a deficiency or fills a need; that which completes or brings closer to completion; an extra part added (later) to a publication, giving further information or listing corrections to earlier mistakes"
15. "Similarly in section 91, the word "bond" has been referred which is to be executed by a person who appears before the Court for his appearance either with or without sureties. No further details have been mentioned as to how the bond should be executed, forfeited, amount of bond, and instead of bond other recognizance can be executed so on and so forth; therefore, for these matters, we have to refer to other provisions of the Code. Chapter XLII "Provisions as to bonds" appearing in Chapter IX "supplementary provisions", would be referred to and read with section 91,Cr.P.C. Dealing with above subject. Similarly under section 91, Cr.P.C. Any person is to be released after executing bond.
16. Any person includes an accused of an offence. No further details have been mentioned in it as to how the accused person can be released in case of bailable or non-bailable offence. For obtaining further details and fill the deficiency of section 91, Cr, P. C., Chapter XXXII of Supplementary Provisions, Part IX, Cr.P.C. "on bail" would be attracted which starts from sections 496 to 502, Cr.P.C.
17. Which deal "in what cases bail is required to be, taken till the discharge of the sureties". As such section 91 is to be read along with the sections 496 to 502, Cr.P.C. For the purpose of releasing the accused involved in bailable or non-bailable offences."
18. "From the above position, it is clear that once the accused person or persons are brought or appear before the Court in pursuance of process under section 204, Cr.P.C. Issued either on a police report, direct complaint or Magistrates own personal information, then the Court is required to decide as to whether the offences are bailable or non-bailable. If the offences are bailable then the Court shall release the accused on bail within the meaning of section 496, Cr.P.C. By passing appropriate order. However, if the offences are non-bailable, then the accused person or persons are required to be remanded to judicial custody or the Court may grant bail to them within the meaning of section 497, Cr .P. C . After complying the requirements of the said section by passing a speaking order. If the accused person or persons before the process is served upon them or bailable warrants are served, want to invoke the provisions of pre-arrest bail as provided under section 498, Cr.P.C. Then they can approach the appropriate Court for grant or otherwise of the pre arrest bail by invoking the provisions of said section after satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. The provisions of sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Have elaborately been discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Sadiq Ali v. State PLD 1966 SC 589 and Muhammad Ayoob v. Muhammad Yakoob, PLD 1966 SC 1003.
19. Thus section 91, Cr.P.C. Cannot be applied in isolation, but is to be applied and read with sections 496 and 497, Cr.P.C. For the purpose of release of an accused person B against whom a process is issued under section 204, Cr.P.C. By the Court after taking cognizance on any source of information mentioned in section 190. Cr.P.C.#TE## In the present case, the offences were non-bailable. When the applicants appeared before the trial Court in pursuance of bailable warrants issued under section 204, Cr.P.C. For their appearance, the trial Court without granting bail within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C. Released the applicants on the affidavit filed by the surety. The said procedure was not warranted by law; therefore, the trial Court was not justified in releasing the accused without granting bail through an order passed under section 497, Cr.P.C. The trial Court is required to comply within provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the direct complaint case. Thus the argnments of the counsel for the applicants has no force that the trial Court had granted bail to the applicants."
20. ' Hence in view of the above discussion, I have arrived at the conclusion that though issued at a belated stage there is no illegality in the issuance of the show-cause notice by the learned trial Court and the present revision application not being an application for pre arrest bail but as the applicant had not approached the trial Court or this Court for pre-arrest bail against the show- cause notice has filed this criminal revision application which in view of the above discussion, I find liable to be dismissed. Accordingly Criminal Revision Application No,114 of 2008 is dismissed in limine.