Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 93-T and 94-T of 1986, heard on 29th November, 1986.
---Ss. 250, 526, 559 (1) & 561-A'-Jurisdictioh of successor Magistrate-' Transfer of proceedings--Petitioner acquitted in two complaints filed by respondent--Ilaqa Magistrate issuing notice to respondent under S.250, transferred--Successor of Magistrate taking up proceedings--Successor Magistrate, held, had no jurisdiction to proceed with matter relating to compensation but proceedings would not become infructuous--Magistrate passing--order of acquittal being available, matter relating to compensation were transferred to him for disposal in accordance with law.
Rehamt Ali Malik for Petitioner.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha and Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Dates of hearing; 3rd June and 29th November, 1986.
This Criminal Miscellaneous application and Criminal Miscellaneous No.94-T of 1986 are being disposed of by this order as a common question of law is involved therein.
2. The facts of the case are that Syed Zahid Bokhari respondent filed a complaint under section 500, P.P.C. and another under sections 342, 356 and 506, P.P. C. against the petitioner in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, Lahore. After facing his trial, the petitioner was acquitted in both the cases by Ch. Muhammad Bashir, Magistrate First Class, Lahore. While passing the orders of acquittal he also issued notice to the respondent under section 250, Cr.P.C. in each case to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay Rs.15,000 as compensation to each accused for filing false, frivolous and vexatious complaints. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate was transferred and his successor Mr. Abdur Razzaq took over. The petitioner moved an application under section 439-A read with section 528, Cr. P. C. in the Sessions Court for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Mr. Abdur Razzaq to his predecessor, i.e. Ch. Muhammad Bashir, who was posted as Special Magistrate L.D.A., Lahore, on the ground that Mr. Abdul Razzaq was not competent to proceed with the matter regarding compensation. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application with the observation that under section 559(1), Cr.P.C. the powers and duties of a Judge or a Magistrate could be, exercised or performed by his successor-in-office.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner: contends that section 250 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that only Magistrate by whom the case, is heard and who acquits the accused can call upon the complainant to show cause why he should not make compensation, to the accused, therefore, the successor-in-office is not competent to issue such a notice or make order for payment of compensation. He submits that section 559(1), Cr.P.C. does not cover the situation because it is subject to the other provisions of the Code.
Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No-1 submit that the successor Magistrate is not competent to deal with the matter regarding compensation and that in the given circumstances no ground for the transfer of the case is made out because after the transfer of the trial Magistrate the, proceedings have become infructuous.
4. I have given my careful consideration- to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. All of them agree that the successor Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter relating to compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Bhini Pershad v. The State A I R 1953 Punj. 212 in support of this view. The case was heard by Mr. Muhammad Bashir, Magistrate First Class, Lahore. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, he is presently posted as Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. There is no authority for the proposition that after his transfer the proceedings had become infructuous. Since the Magistrate who passed the order of acquittal is available at Lahore, the matter relating to compensation in both the cases is transferred to him for disposal in accordance with law.
S. A. Case accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer