1969 PLP 319 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing ; 17th April 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal which arises from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, refusing to interfere under section 561‑A' of the Criminal Procedure Code with an order passed on the 21st November 1966, by the District Judge, Sialkot, with the powers of the Claims Commissioner. By the said order a complaint had been directed to be lodged against the petitioner under section 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code for fabricating a judgment in his favour, purported to have been passed by a Claims Commissioner, on the 22nd June 1960. Subsequent enquiry had revealed that the petitioner was not even a displaced person. Hence the proceedings against him. The petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the complaint, firstly on the ground that the Claims Commissioner was not competent to review the order passed by his predecessor on the 20th March 1965, since the power of review had been taken am ay by Ordinance No. 22 of 1964; and secondly on the ground that the Claims Commissioner could not pass an order under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it was not a Court. All these contentions were repelled by the High Court and it was held that by subsection (3) of section 8 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (Act III of 1956) the Claims Commissioner was a Court within the meaning of sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In any event the Claims Commissioner would be entitled under section 195, Cr. P. C. to lodge the complaint. Section 16 of the above‑mentioned Act also expressly authorised a Claims Commissioner to file a complaint of an offence punishable under the Act. The Claims Commissioner was, therefore, competent to lodge the complaint. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition sought to contend before this Court that on the 21st November 1966, the District Judge was no longer vested with the powers of a Claims Commissioner. He was asked to produce the notification by which the power had been taken away and he was given time for this purpose. He has now produced an uncertified copy of a circular letter said to have been written by the Registrar of the High Court of West Pakistan to the District and Sessions Judges informing them that the Central Government had decided that the Settlement cases pending before them should be transferred back to the Settlement Organization. This letter also does not give any reference to any notification of‑the Government withdrawing these powers from the District Judges. It cannot, therefore, be said on the basis of this letter alone that the District Judges bad by the 21st November 1966, been divested of this power, particularly since when the order of the High Court itself indicates that the impugned order was made by a "District Judge of Sialkot with the powers of the Claims Commissioner." In the circumstances it would be safe to presume that the High Court was right in saying so unless a notification is produced to show that the District Judges had been divested of this power. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the High Court. If in fact any such notification has been issued and the complaint was lodged by an officer who was not competent to do so, then this will be available as a good defence to the petitioner at the trial. It will also be open to him to raise his other defences, if any, at the trial, for, the findings of the Claims Commissioner would, in no way, be binding on the criminal Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.