1968 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI J.

Mst. Allah Bandi, respondent No. 1, made a written complaint to the President against Ch. Jehangir Ali, Advocate, Sargodha, petitioner, that he had while acting as her counsel done certain acts which constitute professional misconduct and made a prayer that an inquiry may be directed to be held and if found guilty "a legal action be taken against him". The acts complained of a constitute offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. The petition of complaint was forwarded by the President's Secretariat to the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, who directed Syed Amir Ahmad Shah, P. C. S., a local Magistrate, to hold an inquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner and submit a report to him. Thereupon an inquiry was held and on 1-3-1967 a report submitted to the Additional District Magistrate that the petitioner has been prima facie guilty of the offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. Before the report was received the petitioner on 2-3-1967 applied to the Additional District Magistrate for being impleaded as a party to the inquiry as the proceedings were in the nature of an inquiry into alleged professional misconduct on his part. The respondent opposed the application and urged that as a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner in the inquiry held by Syed Amir Ahmad Shah the Court should now issue process for his appearance instead of holding the inquiry de novo. The Additional District Magistrate without expressing any. view on the nature of the inquiry already held on the complaint made by the respondent directed that as the "matter pertains to P. S City the entire work whereof has since been transferred to the City Magistrate. In the circumstances papers are forwarded to him for early disposal according to law under intimation to the District Magistrate". A caution was further put in that "no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the respective contentions". The City Magistrate issued process to the petitioner, but as no progress was made in the trial of the complainant the respondent applied to the High Court under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of the case to another Court of competent jurisdiction. The allegations made in the transfer application were denied by the City Magistrate and the learned Judge in the High Court accepted his explanation. He, however, directed that since the accused is an advocate the case should be tried by the District Magistrate. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 526, Cr. P. C., in the case as the complaint made by the respondent against him was of professional misconduct and not a complaint tinder the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is little force in the contention raised in support of the petition. Though the complaint made by the respondent against the petitioner was that he had been guilty of professional misconduct she had at the same time made a prayer that a legal action be taken against him. Syed Amir Ahmad Shah, Magistrate, to whom the complaint was assigned by the District Magistrate, Sargodha, inquired into it not as an administrative officer, but as a Court and the report submitted by him that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the offence under sections 420; 468 and 471, P. P. C. was under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We further find from the application made by the respondent in the High Court for transfer of the case that the City Magistrate had `summoned' the petitioner and fixed various dates for recording evidence of the complainant. The trial Magistrate ha thus taken cognizance of the case within section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from the assertion in the com plaint made to the President that the petitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct it was a complaint regarding commission of offences falling under sections 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. The trial Magistrate was therefore in law competent to take cognizance of the complaint and proceed with its trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view the High Court acted with jurisdiction in directing transfer of the case under sect-.in 526, Cr. P. C. On merits no exception could be taken to the directions that as the petitioner was a member of the bar the District Magistrate should try the case himself. The petition is thus without any substance and is dismissed. Leave refused.