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 No. 57/B of 1982, decided on 16th November, 1982.
‑‑‑Ss. 439, 439‑A, 439(2,) & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.427, 430, 506, 148 & 149‑‑Revision petition against order passed by Magistrate transferred to Additional Sessions Judge by Sessions Judge‑‑Order of Additional Sessions Judge whereby revision petition was dismissed challenged on ground that Additional Sessions Judge had no revisional powers to exercise under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Such contention found to be wholly misconceived‑‑According to S.439(2), Additional Sessions Judge having all powers of Sessions Judge, which he could exercise in respect of cases transferred to him by Sessions Judge‑‑Revision petition being properly transferred for disposal by Sessions Judge to Additional Sessions Judge who disposed it of in a legal manner, order of Additional Sessions Judge, held, could not be said to be passed in any illegal manner and without jurisdiction‑‑Order of summoning accused by Trial Court in private complaint also not found to be illegal‑‑Quashing of complaint case declined in circumstances.
Muhammad Akram v. Ata Ullah Khan Rana P L D 1978 Kar. 728 distinguished.
Ch. Muhammad Sanaul Haq for Petitioner.
Ghulam Qasim respondent No.1 filed a complaint against Allah Wasaya petitioner and 4 others under sections 427/430/506 and 148, read with 149, P.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffargarh on 2‑2‑1982. The learned Magistrate after preliminary inquiry, by his order, dated 15‑4‑1982 issued process to all the accused persons named in the complaint including the petitioner for attending the Court on 29‑4‑1982. This order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, who transferred it for disposal to Additional Sessions Judge by his order, dated 4‑7‑1982. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition held that the order of the learned Magistrate summoning Ore petitioner as accused was supported by evidence adduced by the respondent and also that it did not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the instant petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of both the orders passed by the two Courts below.
2. The only point urged before me is that the Additional Sessions Judge's order, dated 4‑7‑1982 whereby he maintained the learned Magistrate's order, dated 15‑4‑1982 was illegal and without jurisdiction, because the Additional Sessions Judge, according to him, had no revisional powers to exercise under section 439‑A., Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance of Muhammad Akram v. Ata Ullah Khan Rana P L D 1978 Kar. 728. The contention of the learned counsel is wholly misconceived because subsection (2) of section 439‑A specifically provides that an Additional Sessions Judge has got all the powers of a Sessions Judge, which of course, he can exercise in respect of the cases which are transferred to him by a general or special order of the Sessions Judge. The record shows that the revision filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge was lawfully entrusted to the. Additional Sessions Judge by way of transfer on 4‑7‑1982, and in exercise of the powers under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed it lawfully. The authority referred to by the learned counsel is not at all relevant to the facts of the case in hand. The learned Judge in the above‑cited case noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had suo motu assuming the jurisdiction upset the order passed by another Additional Sessions Judge which was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. As far as the present case is concerned the revision petition was properly transferred for disposal by the Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge who disposed it of in a legal manner and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was in any manner illegal and without jurisdiction. Also, the learned counsel did not show as to why the Magistrate's order, dated 2‑2‑1982 was not legal.
3. For the foregoing discussion the petition is found to be without merits and is hereby dismissed.
H. A. K. /4628/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer