fresh case law on 265 K

2016 P Cr. L J 883
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, JJ
SIP, ADAM ABRO and 13 others---Petitioners
Versus
Syed MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH and 2 others---Respondents
Criminal Revision Application No. D-137 and M. A. No. 5898 of 2015, decided on 14th January, 2016.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
S. 265-K---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Terrorism---Kidnapping for ransom---Power of court to acquit accused at any stage---Scope and requirements---Contradictions in private complaint and statement of witnesses during preliminary inquiry and delay in filing complaint---Effect---Accused was alleged to have abducted nephew of the complainant for ransom---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed the application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the points raised therein, being related to factual aspects of the case, required evidence---Accused had simply pleaded that the charge against him was false and in support of his contention had referred to certain contradictions in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses---Accused was not able to show any material discrepancy in the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses to establish that the allegations against them were prima facie false and fabricated and that those allegations even if proved would not end in their conviction---Accused could not be acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. on basis of any alleged contradictions in the statements of the witnesses---Object of S. 265-K was to satisfy the court about prima facie occurrence of the incident---Benefit of the provision of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C could only be extended to the accused, when once he was able to establish that the charge of the offence against him was groundless and no probability of his conviction on basis of the such charge existed---Delay in filing of the complaint also could not be considered valid ground for acquittal of the accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--- Whether any adverse consequence was to follow or not due to the delay was essentially a factual question, which had to be appreciated only in the light of the evidence---Delay in lodging the complaint, even otherwise, appeared to have been reasonably explained---Accused, in the given circumstances were not entitled to be acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Revision was dismissed accordingly.

S. 265-K---Power of court to acquit accused at any stage---Scope---False groundless charge---Effect---False charge has altogether different connotation than the charge which is groundless---In the first case, the court can reach such conclusion and acquit the accused only after evidence is recorded---Accused, however, can be acquitted at any stage of the trial, even before framing of formal charge against him if the charge is groundless---In order to show that the charge is groundless, the accused has to convince the court that no material exists on basis of which he can be convicted and continuation of the trial against him is exercise in futility, and that even if the allegations leveled against him are taken to be true, no probability of their conviction exists.