1968 P Cr (PLP)

HAMDOODUR REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner was arrested on the 10th February 1967, by the Regional Controller of Civil Aviation, Lahore Airport, for an alleged trespass into the apron which was a restricted area. The said officer who was also invested with powers of a Magistrate First Class, purported to take cognizance also of the offence alleged against the petitioner under section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code, under section 190(I)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of his own knowledge or suspicion that such an offence had been committed, and sought to try him. But since the petitioner claimed to be heard through a lawyer, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued and he was sent to the Station House Officer, South, Cantonment, Lahore. The petitioner, it is alleged, avoided appearing before the officer concerned and ultimately on the 4th May 1967, moved the High Court to quash the proceedings upon the ground that he was never in any prohibited area of the Airport; that the case against hint had been started mala fide and that in any event, even if the facts of the case are admitted for the sake of argument, no case under section 447, P. P. C. had been made out. At the hearing before the High Court, however, it was contended on the petitioner s behalf that since the offence alleged was a Scheduled offence under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance. 1961, it could only be tried by a Conciliation Court and no other Civil or Criminal Court had any jurisdiction to try the said offence. It was not disputed before the High Court that the offence was a Scheduled offence but reliance was placed upon section 18 of the said Ordinance to show that the Regional Controller, invested with power, of a First Class Magistrate, was competent to take cognizance of the case and to try the same unless he him self directed that the case .may be referred ‑to the Conciliation Court. Section 18 is in these terms: "Investigation by Police‑Nothing in this. Ordinance ‑shall prevent the police from investigation a cognizance case by reason of fact that the case related to an offence specified in section A of Part I of the Schedule, but if any, such case is taken to a Criminal Court, such Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that it be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance." It was contended before the High Court that the application of this section was confined to such cases as had been sent to a criminal Court after investigation by the police. But the High Court took the view that upon a reasonable construction of the provisions above quoted "it would also cover a case in which the Magistrate himself takes cognizance of the offence, as obviously there appears to be no reason why a cognizance by the police should take precedence over the cognizance by the Magistrate himself". The petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. was accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner now seeks‑ special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the (sigh Court has clearly gone wrong upon the interpretation of the provisions of section

18. This section, on the face of it, appears to be confined to cognizable cases sent up to a Criminal Court for trial after investigation by the police. The point raised, in our view, is a question of law of some general importance on which there is no authoritative decision of this Court as yet. We accordingly, grant leave to examine this point. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the proceedings before the trial Court will remain stayed. Leave granted.