1. ' This Revision application has been filed against the order, dated 9th August, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, whereby he dismissed the complaint of applicant under section 203, Cr . P. C ' I have heard Mr. Syed Nasiruddin learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.Q. Halepota and Mr. Ramchand learned counsel for the private respondents. I have also heard Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wall, appearing for the State.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that applicant filed direct complaint and learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. On 28-5-1983. He forwarded the complaint to Civil Judge and F.C.M. Tando Adam for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. The Civil Judge and F.C.M., Tando Adam recorded statements of the witnesses and sent his report to the learned Sessions Judge on, 27-7-1983.
3. ' Mr. Nasiruddin learned counsel, has contended that before the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Tando Adam all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of complainant and Civil Judge also submitted the report that prima facie case has been made out. In spite of that learned Sessions Judge 'without applying his mind dismissed the complaint.
4. ' I have gone through the record which shows that police party went in. Search of the dacoits and there was encounter with police in which one of the persons from the applicants side was killed, at the hands of police. Appellant, therefore, filed direct curiutunt. Nr, the other hand, police registered a case under sections 307, 353 awl 'I.) of the Arms,,Ordinance against the applicant party which is sti" pending. Accordingly these are two counter-versions of this.
5. ' Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali appearing for the State supported this revision and submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the complaint is not proper ' Complainant and his witnesse have supported the case befor the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Tando Adam. The learned Civil Judg and F.C.M. In his report, dated 25-7-1983 observed that in his opinion there is sufficient evidence against the accused for proceedings. Have also gone through the order of the learned Sessions Judge. I a of the view that the learned Sessions Judge without applying his min properly, has dismissed the complaint. The impugned order, dated 9-8-1983, is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learne Sessions Judge, Sanghar, who should re-consider the evidence recorded by the Civil .Judge and F.C.M., Tando Adam and pass appropriat order after hearing the parties.