1987 PLP 1660 (MLD)

Dr. Syed Farooq Hassan for Petitioner. Sahibzada Anwar Hameed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1987. Through this Constitutional Petition, Idrees Shah and Zahoor Shah petitioners want this Court to declare the orders dated 11-4-1987 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and dated 25-1-1987 of Resident Magistrate, Tandlianwala to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that the police submitted report before Resident Magistrate, Tandlianwala to the effect that there was apprehension of breach of peace between respondent No.4 and the petitioners over the possession of land. On this the learned Magistrate passed an order of attachment of the land on 25-1-1987. Feeling aggrieved thereby Zahoor Shah petitioner filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The parties appeared before him on 21-3-1983 and agreed to the decision of the revision petition in accordance with the statement which may be made by one Muhammad Aslam with regard to the payment of lease money to Fazal Shah, etc. On this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned Muhammad Aslam for 11-4-1987. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of Muhammad Aslam who stated that no lease money was paid to Fazal Shah. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 11-4-1987, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no authority to decide revision petition on the basis of the statement made by Muhammad Aslam and that he should have decided the case in accordance with law. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a case 'Muhammad Latif and others v. Fazal Haq and others' reported as P L D 1985 Lah.233 to contend that the revision was rightly decided in accordance with the statement of Muhammad Aslam.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself tq agree with him. I find that the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the disposal of criminal revision is no recognized by Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was legally bound to decide the revision petition i A accordance with law and that he had no authority to decide the revision petition on the basis of statement made by Muhammad Aslam. The parties could not confer upon him the power to decide criminal revision in accordance with the statement of Muhammad Aslam. For what has been said above, there is no option but tq declare the order dated 11-4-1987 passed by the learned Additions Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, to be without lawful authority and of n B legal effect. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the revision is remanded back to him with the direction that he should decide the revision filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A. A. /1-27/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.