P (PLP)

While the powers of revision, on accordance‑with section 439 of the Criminal Procedure‑Code are entirely unfettered, it would not be proper for the High Court 'to allow what would virtually be, an appeal from the order of the lower 'Court. All that is necessary is to see whether & serious error of law of any gross irregularly has been committed in the lower .Court such as would justify Interference in revision. ORDER‑--The grounds for moving this Court to exercise its powers of revision are mainly based on the arguments pro duced, by the learned, counsel for the convict petitioner that the. City Magistrate, being Remember of the Quetta Municipality should, not have tried, the case as the accused himself was in employ of the Municipality and has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 409; Pakistan Penal Code in relation to certain monies which he collected on behalf of the Municipality but failed, to deposit. The other main argument is, that the provisions of section 342, Criminal Procedure Cede, have not properly been complied with and that‑the proceedings of the the trial Court are vitiated. I would first serve the while the powers of revision of this Court in accordance with section 439 of the Criminal Pro cedure Code as entirely unfettered, it would not be proper for this Court to allow what would virtually be an appeal ‑from the order of the lower. Court. All that is necessary is to seed whether a serious error of law or any gross irregularity has been committed in the, lower Court such as would justify interference by this Court to revision. The arguments, adduced before me are not convincing. The City Magistrate who tried this case and convicted the accused, is an ex‑officio member of the Municipality, but. I am not‑convinced that he was in any way prejudiced against the accused while the prosecution war in fact launched through the Agency of the Executive Officer and not by the City Magistrate‑himself. Moreover, I observe that the petitioner did not `apply' for the" transfer of this case from the Court of the City Magistrate, Quetta though he had the right to do so if: he felt that the Magistrate was in any way prejudiced against him. This point also does riot appear to have been argued before the lower appellate Court. I therefore, hold that the accused received a fair trial without prejudice and the fact that the City Magistrate is ‑also‑a member of the Municipality‑would not vitiate the proceed ings in that Court of that Magistrate. As for the provisions of section 342, Criminal Procedure Code I can find: nothing to indicate that they have not properly been complied with. I, therefore, find that no serious irregularity‑has been com mitted it the, proceedings of the trial Court arid that the accused has been properly convicted and that the conviction was up held in the Appellate Court. There are, therefore, no grounds for this. Court to exercise its powers of revision and the application for revision is rejected. K.M.A Revision dismissed.