SAIFAL MUGHERI vs ABDUL GHANI and 3 others
This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction to issue directives to revenue authorities, specifically regarding the demarcation of land, under the powers conferred by Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful jurisdiction and set it aside. The ratio of the decision is that the jurisdiction of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is strictly confined to issuing directions to police authorities concerning the non-registration of criminal cases, the transfer of investigations, or neglect, failure, or excess committed by police officials. The key principle laid down is that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6)(iii) do not extend to revenue officials or the determination of civil rights, as jurisdiction is a power vested solely by law, and acts performed outside this statutory scope are void.
- Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to issue directions to revenue authorities regarding land demarcation?
- Is the scope of Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited solely to the oversight of police authorities?
- Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace intervene in the determination of civil rights between parties?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A(6)(iii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.---The facts in brief necessary for passing of instant order are that on filing of Criminal Misc.
Application by the private respondent, the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , passed the following order; "I" am at the humble view that it is the specific domain of Mukhtiarkar Taluka Kamber to carry out the demarcation of site after adopting the due course of law and he will have the privilege to call the "Otaras" from the survey department in respect of survey numbers to which have been disclosed by the respondents Nos.3 to 5 so that the actual dispute is to be removed and the application in hand is hereby disposed of with the observation to issue the directions to the Mukhtiarkar , Taluka Kamber to call the "Otaras" from the survey department and to constitute the team for carrying out the demarcation at site and so also he will make a request to the Senior Superintendent of police through Deputy Commissioner Kamber Shandadkot so that the sufficient manpower is to be deployed at site at the time of carrying out the demarcation and the task of demarcation is to be completed in accordance with law".
2. The applicant being aggrieved of above said order has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , was having no authority to have involved him in determination of civil right of the parties by exercising his jurisdiction as Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order .
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent that the revenue officials failed to discharge their lawful obligation. It is why, the learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber-Shandadkot @ Kamber , came into aid of the private respondent by directing the revenue officials to discharge their lawful duty by way of impugned order , the same according to them is not illegal. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant Crl. Misc.
Application.
5. Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order , the same according to him has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge/ExOf ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , without lawful jurisdiction.
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace apparently has passed the impugned order by taking advantage of section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr .P.C., which reads as under; "[(6) An Ex-of ficio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding.
(i) Non-registration of criminal case;
(ii) Transfer of investigation from one police of ficer to another; and
(iii) neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties.]"
8. There is nothing in above section of law which may have authorized an Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace to issue direction to revenue authorities to demarcate the site, by exercising his powers under section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. rather the provision is quite clear and obvious and it is aimed to provide a watch over acts and omissions of police only. It may be observed here that "jurisdiction" is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties which could be vested by the law alone and absence of such power would be sufficient to render such order as "without jurisdiction". Reference in that respect may well be placed upon the case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458) wherein it is observed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that; "... wherein this Court held that by "jurisdiction" is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties.....
9. Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code, did vest any power in Ex Officio Justice of Peace to hear and decide a complaint of negligence by any other official authority but police hence it would be safe to conclude that any such direction would be 'without jurisdiction'. In these circumstances, the impugned order having been passed without lawful jurisdiction could not be sustained, it is set aside.
10. The instant Crl. Misc. Application is dismissed accordingly .