1969L3073 (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 526‑Transfer of case‑Magistrate refusing to supply a copy of his order passed in proceedings before him‑Litigant having genuine apprehension that he will not have a fair trial‑Case directed to be transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Muhammad Noor Ali v. The State P L D 1961 Dacca 239 and Gurdas Ram v. Emperor A I R 1940 Lah. 283 ref. S. M. Masood for Petitioner. S. M. Bashir, A. A.‑G. for the State. Ilahi Bakhsh Wijdani for the Complainant. I have seen the report of the learned "Additional District Magistrate. He admits that he refused the copy of the order asked for by the petitioner. He has also sent a copy of his order dated 5th of February 1969, refusing the issue of the copy applied for. It appears from the report of the learned Additional District Magistrate that he permitted his overzeal to finish this case to override his judicial discretion. The judicial orders passed in the course of any judicial proceedings are subject to inspection and this right implies a right to obtain a copy. This has never been questioned. The learned Additional District Magistrate observed that the limitation for filing a revision petition had expired and this was another reason for refusing the copy. I am afraid the learned Additional District Magistrate is not well informed. There is no limitation for a revision petition and the revisional jurisdiction being supervisory in nature, the superior Courts are free to interfere at any stage and after any lapse of time although laches is usually taken note of in such case. The case relied upon by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Muhammad Noor Ali v. The State (P L D 1961 Dacca 239)) clearly says that there is no limitation for revision petitions but it was observed that the rule that a revision should ordinarily be filed within a period of 30 days was followed in Courts more or less strictly. If the petitioner had tiled a revision petition, it would have been for the High Court to find out whether or not it was a case in which the delay should not stand in the way of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Magistrate has presumed to obstruct the jurisdiction of this Court by passing this order and refusing the copy applied for. He should note for the future that copies of the judicial orders have to be supplied to the litigants. It is their right and this right cannot be denied to them on considerations which were beyond the pale of the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Magistrate. 2. Mr. S. M. Masood cites the case of Gurdas Ram v. Emperor (A I R 1940 Lah. 283) where in similar circumstances it was held that the litigant had a genuine apprehension that he will not have a fair trial. 3. I direct that this case be transferred from the file of the learned Additional District Magistrate to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Sheikhupura. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Additional District Magistrate for his guidance. Petition accepted.