2005 PLP 650 (YLR)

Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate General on Court Call. Shaukat Hussain Baloch for Respondent No.1. Through this Constitutional petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 8‑7‑2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent Muhammad Ramzan and allowed his application filed under section 133 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate.

2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has not taken the ground in the writ petition that "neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge have got jurisdiction to deal with the instant case" yet submits that under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code there is no difference between the learned Special Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on Mrs. Anjum Irfan v. Lahore Development Authority through Director General and others PLD 2002 Lahore 555 to contend further that the present learned Judicial Magistrate was competent to try the case and his order was not liable to be set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, submits that according to Notification No.152‑JOB -1(5)/VI‑E.28 dated 24‑4‑1997 issued by the Lahore High Court Lahore only the learned Senior Civil Judges in the Province can try the offences in question as Environmental Magistrates and not the learned Judicial Magistrates as has been done in the present case. Copy of the said Notification was summoned from the office, the same has been produced before this Court and has been placed on the file as Mark‑A. It reads as under:‑‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 24 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance, 1997 (Ordinance XXVII of 1997), the Chief Justice and Judges are pleased to empower all the Senior Civil Judges‑cum- Judicial Magistrates in the Province to try offences, as Environmental Magistrates, under section 17 of 'the said Ordinance, with immediate effect."

4. While defending the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is a well reasoned order and does not call for interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the above notification and have also given anxious consideration to the submission made by the respective parties at the bar. A bare perusal of the notification shows that only the learned Senior Civil Judges‑cum‑Judicial Magistrates in the Province can only try the offences in question, as Environmental Magistrates, under section 17 of the said Ordinance, and implication of the said notification was with immediate effect meaning thereby that the same is still in force. I further note that while issuing the above notification by this Court, copy of the same was also sent to all the District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab for compliance but the same has not been complied with in its letter and spirit in the present case.

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate‑General Punjab and a bare perusal of the Notification issued by this Court on the subject, I am of the view that the order dated 10‑5‑2004 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Okara was without jurisdiction as he was not a Senior Civil Judge and was not competent to deal with such‑like cases. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, both the orders i.e. dated 10‑5‑2004 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Okara and dated 8‑7‑2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara are set aside, the application filed by respondent, Muhammad Ramzan shall be deemed to be pending before the concerned learned Senior Civil Judge‑cum‑Judicial Magistrate and shall be decided on merits as early as possible. H.B.T./A‑326/L Petition allowed accordingly.