1. This criminal revision application is preferred by applicant Moula Bux son of Ladho Khan challenging the order, dated 17-11-1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur who dismissed the direct complaint of the applicant under section 203, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts of the case are, that the applicant filed a direct complaint against the respondents who are Police Officers for having committed offences under section 161/162/163/164/220, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. This complaint was filed on 5-12-1989. The complainant states that due to election enmity accused Anwar Hussain in conspiracy with others lodged a false report on 22-1-1988 at Police Station Gambat against the complainant party for the theft of articles worth Rs.67,640 vide Crime No.10/88.
3. Moula Bux and Mirza Ujjan are heirs of the complainant while Muhammad Iqbal alias Baloo is his close relative.
4. Accused H.C. Anwar Hussain was posted as incharge outpost Khuhra, he arrested Muhammad Iqbal alias Baloo and demanded bribe of Rs.70,(X)t) from complainant. In consequence, he raided the house of the complainant to extort bribe and maltreated Baloo and Mirza. After one month of lodging F.I.R. 10/88 he arrested complainant's son Muhammad Ali and Lal Bux son of Andal at Shahdad Kot Textile Mills and demanded Rs.1,000 each for their release. For two days they were wrongfully confined and maltreated with the result the complainant party was forced to pay Rs.2,000 as bribe for their release. This amount was paid in the presence of Ghulam Hussain, Mithal, Muhammad Ali and Lal Bux. The complainant sent telegrams to various authorities.
5. On 20-7-1989 Head Constable Manzoor Ahmed alongwith Anwar Hussain, Darvesh and others raided the house: of the complainant and arrested his son-Ahmed Hussain and also took away 4 bed sheets worth Rs.1,000.
6. On 22-7-1989, accused arrested another son of the complainant namely Ghulam Hussain from the shop. Both Ahmed Hussain and Ghulam Hussain were kept in wrongful confinement for one month and 15 days.
7. Iqbal son of Andal and Mirza were kept in wrongful confinement for 4 months. In the meanwhile the investigation of the case F.I.R. No.10/88 was transferred to C.IA. Police Khairpur. On account of- this accused Manzoor Hussain got annoyed and arrested the complainant and kept him in custody for 24 hours. Again applications were made to higher authorities.
8. About 1-1/2 months afterwards,, accused arrested Aziz Ahmed son of Ali Khan from his house and involved him in false case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance.
9. In the above circumstances the complainant has filed the present direct complaint, on 20-1-1990.
10. After recording the statement of the complainant, the enquiry was marked to Circle Officer, Khairpur. By a report-dated 19-4-1990, the Circle Officer pointed out that he recorded statements of witnesses, there was theft in the spare parts shop, for which the sons of the complainant were suspected. They were arrested by the police and released on bail by the Court.
11. The complainant was not satisfied with this report he therefore, requested the trial Court to examine his witnesses as they were not examined in the enquiry. The trial Court thereafter again made a back reference to the Circle Officer to examine the witnesses of the complainant.
12. Accordingly, the witnesses of the complainant were also examined by the Circle Officer who then sent his report to the trial Court.
13. The trial Court ultimately passed the order dismissing the complaint under section 20.3, Cr.P.C.
14. I have heard the complainant in person. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan, Advocate for the respondents 1, 3 to 6 and Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Ameer Mahar, Advocate for AA.-G. For the State.
15. I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case so also the impugned order passed by the trial Court The bare reading of the complaint will indicate this is a case of misjoinder of accused and also misjoinder of charges.
16. In order to appreciate, I may refer to some of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant states that on' the night of 20-1-1988 a conspiracy was hatchet by the accused on the basis of which a false case was got registered at Police Station, Gambat. It is not specified what was this conspiracy about, who were its members, except bare allegations there was nothing to substantiate the factum of this conspiracy. Again the complainant states in para, 9 of the complaint that his son Ghullam Hussain did not support Anwar Hussain in the local council election in which Anwar Hussain lost, therefore, on account of this enmity, a false case has been lodged. The complainant further states in para 10 of the complaint that Manzoor a relative of one Gul Hassan is accused in a murder case of Ali Khan Lashari father of Aziz Ahmed. The deceased was complainant's brother-in-law. What bearing it has on this complaint case has not been explained.
17. That accused Manzoor Ahmed H.C. Who was Incharge of Police Post Khuhro arrested Muhammad Iqbal alias Baloo and also Mirzan Ujjan and demanded Rs.70,000 as bribe from the complainant.
18. Complainant further states that accused also raided his house and shop only to get money as bribe. Accused threatened complainant and also --maltreated Iqbal and Mirzan.
19. Complainant further states after one month H.C. Manzoor arrested his son Muhammad Ali and Lal Bux son of Andal and demanded bribe Rs.1,000 for the release of each of them.
20. The complainant then goes on to show that on 20-7-1989 his house was raided. That subsequently the complainant was also arrested. That about 1 and a half months back Aziz Ahmed was arrested and involved in a false case under section 13-D.
21. All the above circumstances will go to show that different incidents have been committed by and against different persons without any evidence of sameness of transaction. Several incidents have been joined up in one case, while each of them, appear to be independent transactions. These incidents are not so connected as to form continuity of action in the same proximity of time. In other words this is not a case in which the series of acts are so connected together as to form a single or a complete transaction. As already mentioned different acts have been conducted in respect of different persons therefore, it has resulted in misjoinder of charges and persons.
22. The order passed by the trial Court is also on the same' lines. The learned trial Judge has observed further that in respect of 2 incidents, one is the subject-matter of a case which is pending before Civil Judge and F.C.M. Gambat while the other is pending before S.D-M., Khairpur. It will not be out of place to mention here that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in dismissing the complaint is well-founded and I do not find any reasons to differ with the-same.
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that, this revision application his no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
24. N.H.Q./M-1667/K