ASHFAQ ALI Versus THE STATE

These three Revision Applications, being Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1974, which will be disposed of by a common judgment, have arisen in the following ,circumstances: ‑

1. On 2‑10‑1972, applicant Ashfaq Ali lodged a report with the Kalakot Police Station against Ali Hassan and Halim for offences under section 307/34, P. P. C. He also produced a knife with a blade of more than 4 inches alleged to have been secured from the accused Halim. The police on that basis registered a case under section 13(d) of the Arms ordinance against accused Halim.

2. However, the police did not evince any interest in the matter for some time; with the result that the applicant filed a direct complaint before the Magistrate at Karachi, which came to be registered under section 324/34, P. P. C. During the pendency of this complaint, two complaints were filed by the police against the applicant under section 182, P. P. C. and a separate charge‑sheet was further submitted against the applicant for an offence under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance for being in possession of an unlicensed weapon.

3. It appears that the applicant filed applications before the learned Magistrate, where the two complaints under section 182, P. P. C. and the third case under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance had been filed, for his, discharge on the ground that his direct complaint based on the same facts was still pending. These applications were filed on 6‑1‑1973. No orders were passed on these applications, and the applicant filed revision applications, before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismis sed the applications on the ground that the Revision Applications were prema ture as his applications for discharge were still pending before the Magistrate. Thereafter, he has filed these revisions applications.

4. Mr. Makhdoom Sharif contended that as the direct complaint was still pending, it could not be said that the information given by the applicant to the police could be known or believed by him to be false. His second contention was that since the complaint had been filed, the prosecution against the applicant, if any, was to be on the complaint of the Court under section 211, P. P. C. and not under section 182, P. P. C. In that context, he has referred to the case of Ramchand v. Emperor (30 Cr. L J 399). Mr. Nooruddin Sarki appearing for the State, very fairly concedes this position.

5. In the result, the revision applications are allowed and the two pro ceedings pending against the applicant for offences under section 182, P. P. C. and the third case registered by the police under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, are quashed.

S. A. H. Application allowed.