Khawaja Aqeel Rasheed Butt vs CCPO, Lahore & others
This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Sections 110 and 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a party aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate can bypass the Sessions Court and directly approach the High Court for criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that while the High Court possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction, it should not be exercised as a parallel option without plausible justification, as this would frustrate the legislative intent behind Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which devolved revisional powers to Sessions Judges to ensure justice at the doorstep. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate is inferior to the Sessions Judge, and the proper procedural hierarchy must be respected. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the revision directly and directed the office to transmit the petition to the Sessions Judge, Lahore, for a decision on the merits.
- Can a party directly approach the High Court for criminal revision against an order of a Magistrate without first approaching the Sessions Judge?
- Does the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allow for bypassing the Sessions Court in revision matters?
- What is the legislative intent behind Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the devolution of revisional powers?
- Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 55, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The petitioner through this criminal revision has come up to this Court challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, District Courts, Lahore, upon a 'Qalandra' moved by the Station House Officer, Police Station Mustafa Town, District Lahore, under Sections 110 & 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, against the present petitioner.
2. At the very outset, when asked about the maintainability of this petition for revision, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Sindh High Court in the cases Mazan alias Mazno v. The State (PLD 1975 Karachi 1035), Ali Sher v. S. D. M. Meerpur Mathelo and Another (1982 PCr.LJ 750) and Sajjan v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 1276) and in some other cases directly entertained the criminal revision in similar cases.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Prosecutor and the learned Law Officer present in Court (on Court' s call).
4. Legal status of the order under challenge being a judicial one is an admitted proposition which finds strength from the case reported as Crown v. Syed Abid Shah (1947 Law Reports 322). With all reverence to the cases of Sindh High Court I have observed that the Hon'ble Judges in Sindh High Court have not discussed any justification for directly filing of and entertaining thereof, a criminal revision against an order passed by the learned Magistrate against such a proposition without availing remedy before the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, candidly provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court but at the same time it does not mean that without any plausible justification, a party being aggrieved by an order of the learned Magistrate who is inferior to the Sessions Judge as provided in explanation of Section 435 of the Code ibid, can directly approach the High Court as a parallel option available to him. I am of the opinion that such practice, if allowed, is likely to frustrate the wisdom behind the legislation of Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by virtue of which revisional powers have been devolved to the Sessions Judges and the scheme of dispensation of justice at doorstep. Dealing with such proposition, Sindh High Court has recently passed judgments in the cases Mohsin Abbas v. Qadir Khan Mandokhail and 6 others reported as (PLD 2020 Sindh 94), Kazim Raza Abidi Advocate and 4 others v. XVIIITH Judicial Magistrate and another reported as (PLD 2020 Sindh 748), Mst. Naghma Imran v. The State and 6 others reported as (PLD 2020 Sindh 717) and Hakim Ali v. The State reported as (2019 PCr.LJ 418). In consideration of all mentioned supra, this criminal revision is not entertainable before this Court, hence is disposed of. However, office is directed to transmit the same along with all annexures to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, for its decision on merit. This matter shall be listed in the cause list of learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 06.10.2021.