' This is a revision application under section 439, Cr. P. C. Directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana passed in revision in respect of an order of discharge made by Additional District Magistrate, Larkana disposing of a direct complaint filed before him.
2. The facts in brief are that on 10-1-1971 at about 10 a.m. It is said that one Ali Bux landlord entered the hotel premises let out to petitioner Ghulam Kadir and demanded his rent. Some threats said to have been given by Ali Bux led to a quarrel. A report to this effect was lodged by petitioner Ghulam Kadir with the Police on the same day but it was taken down in the register of non-cognizable cases and no action was taken. On the next day the petittoner filed a direct complaint in Court for offences under sections 148, 380, 451, P. P. C. Etc. Against 8 persons. These persons were said to be armed with hatchets and to have committed theft or robbery of Rs, 1,000 cash and some beddings.
The petitioner/complainant examined himself, his servant Muhammad Ramzan, and one neighbouring hotel keeper. He then closed his side giving up the independent witnesses cited in his complaint. The complainant and the two witnesses were disbelieved by the learned A. D. M. And he discharged the accused/respondent under section 253, Cr. P. C. Against this order of discharge the petitioner moved a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, found that the case in direct complaint was an exaggerated version of the original report lodged with the Police. That while there were in all four persons mentioned in the Police report said to have given threats only, eight persons were introduced in the complaint with hatchets etc. And they were said to have committed theft of cash and property. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, agreed with the observations of the Enquiry Magistrate that the witnesses were interested and they did not inspire any confidence. He accordingly maintained the order of discharge and dismissed the revision application. Being dissatisfied with the order of Sessions Court on the first revision application the petitioner has moved this second revision application against the said discharge order.
3. The alleged incident in this case is said to have occurred on 10-1-1971 about 7 years ago. The main respondent, namely, Ali Bux Brohi, the landord, has since died. It would not, therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to prolong the matter further by ordering a fresh enquiry now.
The Additional District Magistrate, Larkana had based his order of discharge on sounds ground mentioned in the order after discussing the evidence of witnesses heard by him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while maintaining that order gave reasons for disbelieving the petitioner and his witnesses and referred to the material contradictions in the original report filed with the police and the subsequent complaint changing the entire structure of the case. There are thus concurrent findings on these facts by both the Courts below and there are hardly any reasons for interference in the Court of this second revision application.
4. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.