The applicant above-named, being aggrieved by order dated 27th July, 1981 passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, by which applicant's application under section 265-C, Cr. P. C. Was dismissed, has preferred this Revision Petition, on the following facts and grounds :-
2. The applicant moved an application under section 265-C, Cr. P. C. Before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, which reads as under :- . ---It is submitted that as the undersigned was busy in the High Court on 1-6-1981 in a murder case, he sent an application for adjournment through his client. However, having examined-in-chief the com--plainant and P. W. Rais Khan, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to reserve cross-examination of the witnesses for today.
It is humbly submitted that the learned prosecutor has committed an illegality by putting the witnesses in the witness box without supplying copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before the learned Deputy Commissioner West, Karachi, dated 17-6-1980 and other documents filed through P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan, as per mandatory section 265-C, Cr. P. C. He has submitted that dis--regard of mandatory section 265-C, Cr. P. C. Would vitiate the entire proceedings.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the prosecution may kindly be directed to supply the applicant copy of the said complaint alongwith copies of documents filed through P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan. It is further prayed that original complaint filed by the complainant to the learned Deputy - Commissioner West dated 17-6-1980 may kindly be sent for as the purported photo copy thereof produced by the complainant is inadmissible in law."
3. The learned trial Court, after hearing the Advocates for the applicant as well as State counsel, dismissed the said application, vide its impugned order dated 27th July, 1981 and the applicant above-named being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the above Revision Petition on the grounds mentioned in the above petition.
9. The learned Advocate for the applicant I n support of his above petition submitted, that failure of prosecution to supply applicant copy of complainant's application dated 17-6-1980, which is the real F. I. R. Of the case it question and other documents produced before learned trial Court, through P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan, 7 days before the commencement of the trial of the applicant, in compliance with the provisions of section 265-C, Cr. P. C. Has vitiated the said trial and as such the said order be set aside, under section 435 read with section 439, Cr. P. C. By this Court. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon case PLD 1982 Lah. 10.
10. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that F. I. R. Of the case in question is Annexure "A", op the basis of which the applicant is challaned and facing trial.
The application dated 17-6-1980, Annexure `F' is not and cannot be F. I. R. Of the present case pending against the applicant. The learned Advocate further submitted, that documents produced by P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan are not covered by section 265-C, Cr. P. C. At all and non-supply of the copies thereof to the applicant has in no way resulted in violation of section 265-C, Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate for the State further submitted that above petition is misconceived and is not at all maintainable under section 435, Cr. P. C. Or 439, Cr. P. C. In support of his contention that Annexure 'F' is not F. I. R. The learned Advocate for the State relied upon case reported in 1968 P Cr. L J 1597.
11. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates of the parties and have gone through the impugned order dated 27-7-1981, of the learned trial Court.
12. It is clear from the wording of section 435, Cr. P. C. That the said section would come into play, after certain final order is passed an the said order is illegal or improper and as such ought to be set aside.
13. The learned Advocate for the applicant was unable to point out any illegality and/or material irregularity in impugned order dated 27-7-1981 of the learned trial Court, except be submitted, that non-supply of the copies of allege F. I. R. And documents produced by P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan, before 7 days of the commencement of trial was illegal and as such application hag been illegally dismissed by the leaned trial Court and consequently the said order is liable to be set aside by this Court. I find, that the learned trial Court has very carefully considered the application filed B by the applicant and for cogent reasons, after due interpretation of the provisions of section 265-C, Cr. P.
C. Rejected the said application and I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court, given in the impugned order.
14. In my view, applicant, by above revision petition wants this Court, at this stage to hold, that Annexure "A" is not F. I. R. But Annexure "F" is the F. I. R. And that documents produced by P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan are covered by the provisions of section 265-C, Cr. P. C. And as such the entire trial is vitiated and consequently be quashed. Although no such direct prayer has been made in above petition, but it is clear from the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant, that in fact, applicant really desires such result. Be as it may be, I do not find any illegality and/or material irregularity in the impugned order of the learned trial Court nor I find the said impugned order patently perverse, so as to call for interference, either under section 435, Cr. P. C. Or 439, Cr. P.
C. Or even under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In my opinion.
15. The authority cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant is not at all applicable to the present case, at least at this stage, when the entire prosecution evidence has not yet been recorded and it is not possible, in the absence of such entire evidence to give any definite finding, whether F. I. R. Of the case in question is Annexure "A" or Annexure "F" as asserted by the learned Advocate for the applicant. Further, as prima facie from the documents on the file of the application, it cannot be said, that the documents produced by P. W. Rais Ahmed Khan fall within the provisions of section 265-C, Cr. P. C. And non-supply of the copies thereof, has resulted in violation of section 265-C. Cr. P. C. It will be open to the applicant after the entire prosecution evidence has been led, to urge these points, if he can do so, on the basis of evidence brought on record.
16. Therefore I see no merits in the above revision petition, which is dismissed.