1988 P Cr (PLP)

M.S. Baqir and Ch. Mohammad Azam Bhaur for Appellant. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Asstt. A.‑G. with Ch. Nazir Ahmad Randhawa for the State. Dates of hearing: 22nd and 23rd December, 1987. By this judgment I propose to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 132/1975 filed by Gulzar Ahmad, Criminal Revision No.133/1975 by Bashir Ahmad, Criminal Revision No.134/1975 by Rehmat Khan, Criminal Revision No.135/1975 by Ahmad Khan, Criminal Revision No.136 of 1975 by Muhammad Hussain, Criminal Revision No.137/1975 by Ghulam Rasul, Criminal Revision No.138/1975 by Muhammad Sharif, and Criminal Revision No.139/1975 by Muhammad Afzal against their conviction and sentence awarded under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, whereby the petitioners were sentenced to fine of Rs.450, Rs.300, Rs.400, Rs.350, Rs.300, Rs.300, Rs:200, and Rs.325, respectively vide the judgments dated 30‑10‑1974 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioners were plying buses bearing Nos.3742/S.A., 4965/LRA, 5385/ LRA, 7542/GLA, 3990/LRA, 8842/LEJ, 2607/LEJ and 6093/GLA, respectively, between Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) and Rawalpindi, and were challaned by a Mobile Traffic Checking Team on the G.T. Road, within the area of District Gujrat. The learned Special Judge (Malik Manzoor Ahmad) convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs.800, Rs.500, Rs.800, Rs.650, Rs.500, Rs.600, Rs.500 and Rs.525 respectively, on the ground that they pleaded guilty of the charge, vide his judgments dated 23‑4‑1974. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgments went in appeal which were heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat vide his order dated 30‑10‑1974. However, the learned appellant Court took a lenient view and reduced 'the amounts of fines as stated in para. No.1 above. The petitioners have assailed the abovesaid orders by filing these criminal revisions.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Special Magistrate was not at all competent to try and convict them as the cases in hand were not entrusted to him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Notification No.13‑18(H)‑Judl‑11/69, dated 3‑3‑1971 and submitted that only those cases can be tried by learned Special Magistrate which cases have been entrusted to Learned counsel argued that the cases in hand were never entrusted to him for trial. Thus, the trial of the petitioners was wholly without lawful authority. It is contended that the statements of the petitioners were not at all recorded by the learned trial Court as required by the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. and thus a substantial prejudice has been caused to them. The learned State counsel submitted that the petitioners themselves pleaded guilty before the learned trial Court and that they did not take a point of jurisdiction before him. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioners had fled appeals before the learned Sessions Judge and they again did not urge this point of jurisdiction before the learned appellate Court. Learned counsel stated that whole case of the petitioners before the learned appellate Court was that the amounts of fine imposed upon them are excessive and that the same should be reduced. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that no other point was taken or argued before the learned appellate Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record very minutely. I am of the view that the petitioners were apprehended at the spot while violating the provisions of law contained in the Motor Vehicles Ordinance. The petitioners made statements before the learned trial Court confessing the commission of the crime. They did not raise objection that the learned Magistrate was not competent to try them. This being the position the petitioners were rightly and correctly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. Further, the petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences by filing appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat. Before the appellate Court too, they did not raise the point of jurisdiction that the learned trial Court was not competent to try and convict them. The case of the petitioners before the learned appellate Court was that the amounts of fine imposed upon them were excessive and that the same should be reduced and, in fact, the prayer of the petitioners was allowed by the learned appellate Court by reducing the amounts of fine imposed upon them. At this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted under law to raise the point of jurisdiction. In my considered view, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate was not competent to try and convict them. I have thoroughly scrutinized the Notification on the subject and I do not find anything flowing from the same to show that the learned Magistrate was not competent to try the petitioners. Additionally, in the same Notification it is mentioned that the learned Special Magistrate is also invested with the powers under section 260, Cr.P.C. This being so, I am of the considered view that the petitioners were rightly and correctly convicted by the learned trial Court and their appeals were correctly disposed of in accordance with law by the learned appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has wholly failed to point out any legal infirmity muchless the jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat. With this observation I proceed to dismiss these revisions, being devoid of force. M. Y. H. /G‑119/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.