P (PLP)

While powers of the High Court in revision proceedings are entirely unlimited and unfettered, the Crown, moving for forfeiture of the whole bond under section 514, Criminal Proce dure Code should first approach the District Magistrate in appeal under section 515, Criminal Procedure Code before coming to the High Court in revision. Public Prosecutor for Crown (Petition). Respondent in person. SAKER, J. C.‑

This is a petition for revision by the Crown against the order of the City Magistrate, Quetta, dated 10th January, 1950, in which he directed that a sum of Rs. 200 out of a security bond for Rs. 2,000 should be forfeited. The prayer is to set aside the order and forfeit the whole amount of security. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the effect that in accordance with the pro visions of section 515, Criminal Procedure Code all such orders passed by any Magistrate shall be, appeal able to the District Magistrate and .that this application should therefore, have been lodged in the Court of the District Magistrate and not in this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the powers of this High Court in cases of revision applications were entirely unfettered and that in view of the fact that another revision application relating to the same circumstances was pending for decision before this Court, the Crown felt it would be more proper that this Court should deal with this revision application also. I observe that the other case to which the learned Public Pro secutor refers concerns the discharge of a certain accused person with a prayer to set aside the order of discharge and direct his retrial: It is, therefore, obvious that while these two revision applications may have arisen out of the same set of circumstances they can by no means be considered as bearing any relation to each other for the forfeiture of a bond and the discharge of an accused person, even though directly arising out of the same criminal proceedings, are not legally related to each other. While I accept the principle that the powers of the High Court in revision proceedings we entirely unlimited and unfettered, I con sider that in this case beta" true, which is of a relatively simple nature, it would be in the interests of both the Crown and the respondent that the District Magistrate should take the case. It has been ruled that since under section 515, Criminal Pro cedure Code, the District Magistrate if has the power of revision a High Court should not be troubled in the first instance directly by a revision though as already stated ,above, the power of a High Court to accept revision proceedings is not taken away‑merely by‑the power of the District Magistrate exercised under this section. For the reasons stated above I reject the present revision application and direct that if so advised, the Crown should move the District Magistrate in the matter. A further reason for this direction is to the effect that whatever the decision of the District Magistrate in this matter, it will then be permissible either for the Crown or for the respondent, if so advised, to approach this Court in further revision proceedings. A. H. Petition rejected.