P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

(1) Mir Amirali Khan. (2) Haideri Ghulam Rasool. (3) Syed Molabux. (4) Ghulam Sarwar. The applicants alleged that one Ali Hassan son of Lutufali Jagirani and another man named Gulloo son of Haji Buraro, with the assistance of some other residents of village Kandhra, had started a private Court of their own and had directed people to send complaints to them. It was alleged that about 8 or 10 months before the date of the application these persons had, under the advice of the District Panchayat Officer, Sukkur, formed a Divisional Panchayat and the summons and pamphelets issued by them bore the seal "Sarpanch Panchayat Kandhar, taluka Rohri, District Sukkur". Then some details of the matters of which cognizance had been taken by this Panchayat were given, and a request was made to the learned Sessions Judge to "kindly look into the matter and hold detailed inquiry into the conduct of this gang through some impartial and honest official of Special Police, C. I. D. or military personnel so that full facts may come to light as lower local officials will not dare to report against him. Kindly take action and redress the grievances of the poor public and save them from any more torture." The learned Sessions Judge passed the following order on this application: "Issue notice to Ali Hassan to appear personally with the entire R. & P. of the cases, pending or decided by him." On the same day the learned Judge proceeded to pass a further order to the effect that the application be treated as revision application under section 435 of the Cr. P. C. to inquire whether Ali Hassan is a legally constituted Court. He further ordered that a search warrant be issued under section 96 of the Cr. P. C. to the address of the Superintendent of Police Sukkur to secure the entire alleged record in possession of Ali Hassan or his agent wherever it may be and produce it before the Court on 7‑11‑59.

2. The Superintendent of Police appears to have endorsed this search warrant to the local S. H. O., who in turn directed H. C. Muhammad Hussain Shah to carry out the search. The last named official, however, returned the warrant unserved with?out securing any record whatsoever. The learned Sessions Judge thereupon issued a notice for contempt proceedings to the Super?intendent of Police. In response to this notice the Superintendent of Police tendered apology, explaining that by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code he was under the impression that such a search warrant could be endorsed to a subordinate police officer. The explanation was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the notice issued to the Superintendent of Police was discharged on 21‑11‑59.

3. On 17‑11‑59 Gul Muhammad, i.e., one of the persons against whom the original application was directed, filed objections before the learned Sessions Judge explaining that he had no connec?tion with the Village Panchayat. On 2‑1‑60, the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Sukkur was inspected by my learned brother I. B. Khamisani, J, who passed the following order on this case. "An application was made to the Additional Sessions Judge which was treated by him as revision application under section 435, Cr. P. C. The order of the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be warranted by law. This case should therefore be taken on the file of this Court for orders."

4. In pursuance of this order of Khamisani, J., this matter has come up before me today and I have had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel for the State as well as for Gul Muhammad alias Gullu son of Haji Buraro.

5. It is indeed a matter of surprise that the learned Sessions Judge of Sukkur should have at all taken cognizance of the application presented to him on 4‑11‑

59. In the first place the application was more of an executive or administrative nature and the proper remedy lay with the police authorities or with the Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate of the District, who is the proper authority for looking into and making inquiries into the alleged activities of Ali Hassan and his associates. It is not the function of the Sessions Judge to make such inquiries, or to depute officers of the C. I. D. etc. to do so.

6. Even if the matter may be treated as one of a judicial or quasi‑judicial nature, the application itself made it clear that Ali Hassan and Gullu were purporting to act as members of the Divisional Panchayat formed under the advice of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Sukkur and the matters mentioned in the application were of criminal nature. Even a cursory reference to the relevant provisions of the two Panchayat Acts, which may have applied in this case, namely section 87 of the Sind Village Panchayats Act of 1933 or section 39 of the Punjab Village Panchayats Act of 1939, (which in fact now applied to the areas B comprised in the former Sind Province as well), would have shown that in criminal matters handled by a village Panchayat, revision lies either LO the Collector according to the Sind Act or to the District Magistrate or to S. D. M. according to the Punjab Act. Only in civil matters is jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge clearly acted in a criminal matter in the exercise of his criminal jurisdiction as a Sessions Judge. I have already stated that in view of the law applicable, such jurisdiction could not be invoked. It is therefore clear that the learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in entertaining the application and treating it as one under section 435 of the Cr. P. C., as the Panchayat Acts do not confer any such revisional jurisdiction on the Sessions Judge. The proceedings now pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge are therefore quashed. K. B. A.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.