Muhammad Ramzan Channa vs Bashir Ahmed Alias Bashoo Channa &
This revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial), Sukkur, which dismissed a direct complaint filed by the applicant. The applicant alleged that he paid a bribe to two public officials—a clerk at the Municipal Committee and a Kotwar in the revenue department—to secure the cancellation of a Khasra Girdawari entry regarding inherited property. The core legal question was whether the Special Judge correctly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the applicant failed to disclose the specific date, time, and place of the alleged bribe demand and acceptance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the accused officials lacked the legal authority to cancel Khasra Girdawari entries, as such functions regarding ownership and inheritance rights fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Consequently, the High Court held that the Special Judge’s order was legally sound, dismissing the revision application in limine, thereby affirming that complaints lacking essential particulars and involving matters outside the accused's jurisdiction are rightly dismissed.
- Does a Special Judge have the authority to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the complaint lacks specific details regarding the alleged offense?
- Can public officials who lack the legal authority to perform a specific administrative act be held liable for corruption regarding that act?
- Is a revision application maintainable against an order of a Special Judge dismissing a direct complaint for lack of jurisdiction and specific allegations?
- Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Application for urgent hearing is granted.
2. Over ruled.
3. Exemption is granted subject to all just legal exceptions.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and others inherited the landed property left by their grandfather , subsequently fifty paisa of that landed property was transferred in father 's name of Bashir Ahmed @ Bashoo, though he was having no right of inheritance, therefore, the applicant approached Nizamuddin, a clerk of Municipal Committee Khairpu r and Muhammad Ramzan Kotwar of revenue department Khairpur for cancellation of Khasra gridwari , which they promised to cancel subject to payment of rupees one lac, the applican t paid them rupees fifty thousand, yet they did nothing, therefore, the applicant after approaching Mukhtiarkar and Assistant Commissioner concerned, filed a direct complaint before Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial) Sukkur Division @ Sukkur , which after preliminary enquiry has been dismissed by him vide his order dated 20-11-2020, same being illegal is liable to be set-a side with direction to Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial) Sukkur Division @ Sukkur to take cognizance of the incident.
Heard. Perused record.
No date, time and place for alleged dema nd and acceptance of bribe by Nizamuddin and Muhammad Ramzan is disclosed by the applicant, they even otherwise being employees of Municipal Committee Khairpur and Kotwar in the revenue department have nothing to do with the cancellation of Khasra gridwari , such function involving determination right of ownership/inheritan ce, if any, could only be exercised by Civil Court having jurisdiction. In these circumstances learned Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial) Sukkur Division @ Sukkur was right to dismiss the direct complaint of applicant u/s 203 Cr.P.C by way of impugned order , which is not calling for any interfering by this Court by way of instant revision application. It is dismissed in limine.