MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ILLAQA MAGISTRATE/SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, FAISALABAD

ORDER

' Brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner submitted an application under section 516,A, Cr.P.C. Before the Illaqa Magistrate to secure the Superdari of the vehicle in question which was dismissed by the Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 18-9-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad which had been withdrawn by the petitioner on 6-11-2004 with permission to avail proper remedy before the competent. Court. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Special Magistrate which was also dismissed vide order, dated 19-1-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad which was dismissed on 11-2-2005 to avail proper remedy before the competent Court. The petitioner tiled a revision petition before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption who dismissed the same vide order, dated 6-4-2005. The petitiong being aggrieved filed the Constitutional Petition No,8542 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 19-5-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr . P. C .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption without judicial application of mind and decided the application of the petitioner. Merely on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the order on the application of the petitioner on 19-1-2005. It has been observed by the revisional Court in the petition that Judicial Magistrate has passed the order on the application of the petitioner, therefore, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has no jurisdiction to entertain fhe revision petition against the orders of the Illaqa Magistrate which is not in consonance law laid down, by the superior Courts on the ground that Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has only jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and the order passed by.Illaqa Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass the orders on the application of the petitioner in view of the offence mentioned in the schedule offence which is triable by the Judge Anti-Corruption under the provision of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment, Act, 1958. He further .Urges that it is the duty and obligation of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption to decide the revision petition on merits by considering the same as application filed by the petitioner before him instead of dismissing the same in summary manner which has been passed without any reason. Learned Law Officer submits that the impugned order is valid as the petitioner himself tiled an application before the learned Magistrate as well as before Special Magistrate who decided the same against the petitioner vide orders, dated 18-8-2004 and 19-1- 2005, therefore, impugned order of the revisional Court dated 6-4-2005 is valid in the eyes of law.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-

(i) The impugned F.I.R. Was lodged on the complaint of the petitioner under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line Faisalabad.

(ii) The petitioner has filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate for the Superdari of vehicle in question which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on 18-9-2004.

(iii) The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 6-11-2004.

(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Special Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed vide order, dated 19-1-2005. The petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge which was returned to the petitioner to avail proper remedy vide order, dated 11-2-2005. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Special Judge Anti- Corruption which was dismissed on 6-4-2005.

4. In case the aforesaid orders are put in juxtaposition then the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption brings the case in the area that he has passed the order on the revision petition of the petitioner without judicial application of mind which is condition precedent in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173. Even after addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the cases without fearfavor, with reasons and within reasonable time as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service's case 1998 SCM R 2268.

The impugned order is passed in such manner that the petitioner has become remediless, which is not within parameters of law laid down by the superior Courts. The learned Illaqa Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order has become redundant in view of order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge on 11-2-2005 but this fact was not considered by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, therefore, the impugned order, dated 6-4-2005 is the result of misreading and non-reading of record especially in view of order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 11-2-2005, therefore, the impugned order, dated 6-4-2005 is set aside, meaning thereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. Although the petitioner has filed revision petition but the Special Judge is directed to consider the same as application filed by the petitioner .Under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. And thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law after application of mind.

5. With this observation this petition is disposed of