FAHEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---By filing the instant miscellaneous application, the applicant has called in question the order dated 17-09-2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ubauro in Crime No. 134/2016 of Police Station Ubauro under sections 324, 334, 506, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i).
Through the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate while agreeing with the report of SIO/SHO disposed of the case under C-class.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant namely Talib Hussain approached at aforesaid police station and reported about an incident in which his brother received serious injuries allegedly caused by some of the officials of SEPCO. It is narrated in the FIR that the brother of complainant namely Muhammad Akram Gurgej was working as private servant with SEPCO. On 29-7-2016 at about 12 noon, Iqbal Ahmad Bhutto SDO, SEPCO at Ubauro and Muhammad Hashem Channa in charge of Grid Station, Ubauro called the said brother of complainant and intimated that all the employees were working at 11,000 KV line situated Sonan Bridge and directed him to go there for taking part in its repair. The SEPCO officials (nominated accused) assured him that the power in the damaged line is disconnected but when he went there and tried to take task of repair, he received electric shock and became seriously injured. Subsequently, he was taken to hospital where he had gone under major surgery in which his spleen was removed. The case was reported to police but police avoided to lodge FIR which was later on lodged after intervention of the learned Sessions Judge.
3. In support of the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that although the incident was reported to police and on the verbal direction of police, the injured was sent to hospital for treatment but police had shaken hand with the accused persons and did not issue a referral letter to medico-legal officer. According to him, the referral letter was obtained from the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace and subsequently the FIR was also lodged on his direction. The learned counsel, by referring different memos, submitted that site inspection, injuries and statement of witnesses corroborated the version taken by complainant in his FIR. According to him, the report of investigating officer based on defence witnesses is apparently false and during investigation he is not authorized to examine defence witnesses especially when the prosecution witnesses are fully supporting the case of complainant. He submitted that some of the defence witnesses contradicted each other on the vital points as such their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') are not reliable. According to him, although some of the defence witnesses are not in consonant to each other but the happening of incident is admitted even by them. He further submitted that the SHO and DSP are by caste Bhutto and they are relative of accused lqbal Hussain Bhutto and on his instance they managed a false report under C-class. According to him, the order of learned Magistrate is not proper and learned Magistrate has to pass a detailed and speaking order after discussing every aspect of case in the light of available evidence. He further submitted that the order of learned Magistrate is improper as such the same is to be set aside. He took reliance from 2013 YLR 1297.
4. Conversely, the learned APG supported the impugned order by submitting that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. According to him, although the FIR is lodged on an application to learned Sessions Judge but the application under sections 22-A and 22-B was moved with a considerable delay without any plausible explanation. According to him, it is the case of the applicant/complainant that the injured was working as private employee with SEPCO but no proof has been produced by the applicant about such employment. He further submitted that it was an unbelievable story and how it could be possible that a private and unauthorized person would be allowed or asked to work on 11,000 KV line.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced and gone through the relevant record especially the impugned order. The disposal of cases under a report of police in 'A', 'B' and 'C' classes is an old practice, which in Sindh has now crystalized as legal norms under the principle of usage. Perhaps, this practice is continued from the time when Sindh was the part of Bombay esidency. According to the Bombay Presidency Police Guide, report of investigation under section 173 of the Code, is to be filed before the magistrate either in the form of a charge-sheet, if the accused is sent for trial, or in the form of a Final Report, in other cases.
Final Reports 'are classified into 'A -- true but not traceable cases, 'B' maliciously false cases, 'C'-- neither true nor maliciously false cases and non-cognizable cases. It is settled law that any such report, submitted before the Court, is not binding and the learned Magistrate may concur with such report or may form a contrary view after scrutiny of the entire material available before him. In this respect reliance may be taken from the cases reported as Falak Sher and another v. The State (PLD 1967. SC 425), Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State and another (1997 SCM R 304) and Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others (2002 SCM R 63).
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate has not passed a speaking order. I have gone through the impugned order. From the said order it appears that the learned Magistrate has passed the order after proper scrutiny of the available material. It is not necessary for a Magistrate to dispose of every report produced before him under section 173 of the Code with a detailed order after discussing every aspect of the case. In this respect the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Safdar Ali (supra) has observed as under: "A bare perusal of the said order would reveal that entire record has been examined including the statements of complainant; prosecution witnesses and FIR and thus, it can be inferred safely that the same has not been passed in a mechanical manner or arbitrarily. It may not be out of place to mention here that learned Ilaqa Magistrate was not supposed to pass an exhaustive order for the simple reason that he was not deciding the case at all and, therefore, it was not obligatory for him to dilate upon each and every aspect of the matter which falls within the jurisdictional domain of learned trial Court."
7. In the present case, the police suggested the disposal of case. under C-class', that is neither the case was true nor it was maliciously false. The happening of the incident is not denied but it is revealed from the police report that it was not happened as narrated by the complainant in FIR. It is worth noting that the injured himself has put his hand on the electricity line in which 11,000 KV current was passing. It is also not conceivable that the proposed accused persuaded a layman to work on a high powered line. It is a fact that working on high-powered electricity lines requires some special safety measures and techniques and the same is actually a job of skilled persons having requisite qualification and training. The complainant could not produce any instrument necessary for working on high powered electricity lines or any such certification of his competency to do so during investigation. It appears that he himself has tried to interfere with the high- powered electricity lines with some ulterior motives. As such I am of the view that the impugned order is properly passed and the same does not require any interference. Application dismissed.