This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which remanded a complaint to the trial court with directions to rectify procedural irregularities by recording the complainant's statement. The petitioners challenged this remand, arguing that the trial court's procedural failure warranted the dismissal of the complaint rather than a remand. Additionally, the petitioners contended that a Section 30 Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to try an offense under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The Supreme Court held that the failure to record the complainant's statement initially was a procedural irregularity that necessitated correction rather than the dismissal of the complaint. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court affirmed that a Magistrate First-Class empowered under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) possesses the authority to try all offenses, excluding those punishable by death. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, ruling that the trial court's procedural correction was appropriate and that the Magistrate acted within its legal jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was refused.
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---The complaint filed by respondent No, 1 has twice been remanded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and this petition has arisen out of the second remand order dated 1-11-2010 vide which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge exercising provisional jurisdiction remanded the case to the trial Court and directed to rectify the procedural irregularities/ illegalities by recording statement of the complainant in the first instance and thereafter to proceed with the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the learned trial Court had committed an illegality which warranted dismissal of the complaint and further that the learned trial Court being a Magistrate cannot proceed with the trial of an offence falling within the mischief of section 336, P.P.C.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we find that admittedly the learned trial Court did not record the statement of the complainant in the first instance, which was a procedural irregularity warranting interference and it did not warrant dismissal of the complaint. So far as the contention that the Magistrate section 30, cannot try an offence under section 336, P.P.C.
Is concerned, the learned High Court had adverted to this aspect and held that in terms of section 30, Cr.P.C., a Magistrate First-Class empowered under section 30, Cr.P.C. Can try all offences except those 'punishable with death. The afore-referred observation/finding has not been found by us to be against the law declared.
4. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.