' WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner, in May 1970, was S. H.
0. Of Malir Police Station, Karachi. On the 21st May, 1970, an F. I. R. Was lodged at Police Station, Malir against Syed Shabbir Hussain and another under section 392/34, P. P. C. It is alleged that the accused were arrested on the same day at midnight from the hotel of respondent No,
2. The petitioner's case is that during investigation, the accused Syed Shabbir Hussain pointed respondent No, 2 to be one of his gangsters. Respondent No, 2 who was returning to his house on the 1st June, 1970, at about 11-15 p.m. Was called by the petitioner. He asked him to accompany him in a taxi. The petitioner ordered the respondent to sit in a taxi and when the latter asked the reason why he was being taken away, the petitioner lost his temper and abused him. The petitioner and his companions Ghulam Nabi and Mohammad Ashraf forcibly took the respondent in a taxi. The respondent was taken to the Out-Yost of Malir Police Station. Safdar Zaman aLd Ncor Mohammad were ordered by the Petitioner to drag the respondent inside the Police Outpost. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondent was beaten by Safdar Zaman and Noor Mohammad and was given fist blows and slaps in a room in the presence of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his companions deprived the respondent of his cash of Rs, 251, a Rolex watch, some receipts, match box, keys of the hotel and the handkerchief. The allegation of the respondent is that at the instance of the petitioner, he was taken in a separate room and was asked to take off all his clothes in order to make him naked. He was then asked to disclose the whereabouts of two unknown Pathans who used to visit the hotel of the respondent. On his refusal to disclose the whereabouts of the said persons, he was beaten. It is alleged that the petitioner detained the respondent throughout the night and in the early hours of the morning, a neighbour of the respondent and Abdur Rashid a Member of the B.D., met the respondent. He narrated all the events to them, and they met Ghulam Nabi. Ghulam Nabi, thereafter came to the respondent and asked him for a sum of Rs, 500 in case he wanted his release and save himself from disgrace. This was arranged and the respondent was released.
' Thereafter, the respondent approached the Martial Law authorities, Karachi and made an application on the 2nd June, 1970. No action was taken on it by the Martial Law authorities.
Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Commissioner and S.D.M., Karachi on the 15th June, 1970. This complaint remained pending and on the 31st March, 1971, the respondent was absent and his complaint was dismissed. The respondent filed another complaint on the same facts on the 8th April, 1971. The matter was entrusted to the S.D.M., New Town, Karachi.
He held a preliminary enquiry. Five witnesses were examined by the said Magistrate. In the meantime, he was promoted as City Magistrate, Karachi and he dismissed the complaint on the 24th September, 1971 under section 203, Cr. P. C. The respondent challenged this order in revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed it.
The respondent then took the matter to the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan. Karachi in Criminal Revision No, 22 of 1973 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated the 26th November, 1973, accepted the revision petition and has directed the City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi to hold further enquiry. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. Nisar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the High Court's observation that the City & Additional District Magistrate, Karachi and the Sessions Judge both misread the evidence is erroneous. According to him, the appreciation of the evidence by the subordinate authorities should have been accepted by the High Court and the order of dismissal of complaint should have been upheld. We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and are satisfied that he has interfered in the matter on proper grounds. There was enough material before the City and A.D.M., Karachi to issue process against the petitioner. We do not consider this a fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed.