Find a Lawyer

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

-- S. 561-A read with S. 439-A(2)--Revision-Intention of law-maker: to make revisional jurisdiction exerciseable by either of two Courts-Sessions Judge having exercised revisional jurisdiction, revision does not lie in High Court-Inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A-Held, not to be used as an "additional" or alternative - jurisdiction-Such jurisdiction preserved "in interest of justice" to redress grievances for which no other procedure available or provided by Code.[Revision (criminal)].

Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others P L D 1967 S C 317 rel.

(b) Interpretation of documents-

-- Liberal construction of written documents to be made because of simplicity of laity and with a view to carry out intention of parties and uphold document-Words ought to be made subservient, not contrary, to intention. [p. 730]B

Bakar v. Tucker 3 H L C 116 and Curtis v. Sloven (1889) 22 Q B D 512 ref.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

Ss. 133 & 135-Public nuisance-Conditional order to show cause--Accused, while complying with conditional order also showing cause (and challenging allegation)-Nothing illegal on part of a person showing cause to comply with a conditional order of Court as a humble gesture of obedience-Both requirements not exclusive of each other.-[Public nuisance].

(d) Maxim -

-- Aucupia verboem sunt judice indigna (verbal quibbles are unworthy of a Judge).

M. Siddiq Butt for Petitioner.

Petitioner Prof. Abdul Hamid Kausar initiated proceedings under section 133, Cr. P. C. against the respondent Ch. Muhammad Hussain, owner of Javed Autos Motor Workshop, which according to the petitioner is within the Silence Zone' being located on Dacca Road, Lahore Cantonment. The case is pending before the Cantonment Magistrate, Lahore and I am omitting to mention the intermediary stages of this chequered litigation as the same is not relevant for the purposes of determination of the petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which too was dismissed yesterday in default, and a fresh application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. numbered as 159/Q of 1979 has been filed, and I have permitted the petitioner to refer to the annexures of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 149/Q of 1979.

2. Starting from the relevant stage of litigation the Cantt. Magistrate Lahore Mr. Ishtiaq Ali on 2-0-1978 passed a conditional order calling upon the respondent to close down his workshop, and , for showing cause against the application, filed under section 133, Cr. P. C. In response to this conditional order the respondent filed a written statement which is reproduced in its entirety as the entire argument in this petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is based on the interpretation of wording of the written statement. The written statement is as follows :

Thereafter ,the, petitioner applied to the learned Cantonment Magistrate, interpreting the above written statement, as compliance of the orders of the Court, and a desire not to show cause, therefore, he prayed for making the conditional order as absolute and closing the proceedings. The learned Magistrate rejected the application, against which the petitioner filed a revision petition under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Court, which had been dismissed vide orders dated 10-1-1979 and is Annexure K. This order is being impugned before me in an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.

3. This application is liable to dismissal on more than one grounds, i.e.[ by providing section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure clause (2), the intention of the law maker is to make the revisional jurisdiction exerciseable by either of the two Courts, and in such a situation the revision in this Court does not lie, once the Additional Sessions Judge has exercised, the revisional jurisdiction. It is trite law that the jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not to be used as an "additional" or an "alternative" jurisdiction and as settled in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others (P L D 1967 S C 317); inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. has been preserved "in interest of justice", to redress the grievances for which no other procedure is available or is provided by Code. The matter has been considered by the Additional Sessions Judge and I do not find any such error which should pursuade me to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Secondly, I do not agree with the learned counsel in the interpretation, he is placing on the wording of the written statement which I have reproduced above. I read it to mean that a law-abiding citizen in the first instance challenges the allegations of the petitioner and shows cause for the withdrawal of the conditional order and, in any case, he submits that he, in obedience to the Court's order has closed this workshop. By no means, he admits that his workshop is a public nuisance, or that he does .not desire to show cause. Liberal construction of written documents are to be made, because of the simplicity of the laity, and with a view to carry opt the intention of the parties and uphold the document, and words ought to be made subservient, not contrary, to the intention. 'this principle was recognised in Bakar v. Tucker (3 H L C 116), Curtis v. Stoven ((1889) 22 Q B D 512) per Bowen, L. J.).

The learned counsel wishes to interpret section, 135, Cr. P. C. so as to mean that the petitioner had to choose between either of the courses, i.e. l c either to show-cause or to comply with the conditional order. I do not read section 135, Cr. P. C. as making it illegal on the part of a person showing cause to comply with the conditional order of the Court as a humble gesture of obedience. Both the requirements are not exclusive of the other. The making of choice is between showing cause or claiming a jury and not as interpreted by the petitioner.

If the interpretation of the petitioner was to be accepted even then his application was rendered infructuous as the respondent in that case had already, of his own, closed the workshop in which case the grievance complained against, had been redressed, and no further proceedings were called for. To me, the interpretation placed by the petitioner seems to be merely a verbal quibble in which I would not like to indulge as verbal quibbles are unworthy of a Judge (Aucupia verboeum sunt judice indigna).

In these circumstances, howsoever pious, the sentiment or in public interest the action of the petitioner may be, but the inquiry proceedings have to be in accordance with law, and the absolute order passed only as provided in the Cr. P. C. This application having no merit is dismissed in limine. Without prejudice to the main proceedings under section 133/137, Cr. P. C, before the learned Cantonment Magistrate, however, the seme be expedited because if the workshop of the respondent is determined to be a public nuisance, and is working, it will be in the public interest to remove the nuisance as soon as possible,

s. Q. Application dismissed.

(1) 3 H L C 116 (2) (1889) 22 Q B D 512

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.