1991 P Cr (PLP)

The respondents in this case were tried by a Magistrate on charges under section 452/427 read with section 34, P.P.C. vide order dated 27th of December, 1983, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents of the said charge. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant/petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 22nd of December, 1984 on the ground that the revision petition was not accompanied by a certificate of the District Magistrate refusing to file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. The order dated 22nd of December, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was then impugned through the present miscellaneous petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. This petition was admitted on the ground that the reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the certificate of the District Magistrate was not necessary and in view of the three reported judgments entitled Iftikhar Ahmad v. Abdul Majid etc P L D 1980 Lah 201, Syed Paril Shah v The State and others P L D 1983 Kar. 265 and Pir Abdul Hameed v. Nabi Bakhsh and 9 others 1982 P Cr. L J 865, the petition was admitted on 19th of May, 1986 and the last order was passed by my learned brother Rashid Aziz Khan, J., on 16th of October, 1988, whereby, a notice was issued to the respondents to appear in this Court. This petition has now come up for hearing before this Court and in support of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgments referred to above contends that the impugned judgment dated 22nd of December, 1984 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing the exercise of jurisdiction on the ground that a certificate of the District Magistrate had not been filed, was illegal and, therefore, this petition should be accepted and the case be remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for hearing the revision petition. I have considered this aspect of the case arid there is no cavil with the dispute,, that the production of a certificate issued by the District Magistrate is not a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Sessions Judge. But on the other hand, I have noticed that this miscellaneous petition was filed with the delay of about one year. The impugned order was delivered on 22nd of December, 1984, a copy thereof was applied on the same day and it was delivered to the petitioner on 9th of January, 1985 and the present miscellaneous petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was filed in this Court on 4th of January, 1986, that is with a delay of about a year. Although, no time limit has been prescribed for filing such miscellaneous applications but propriety and principles of laches have to be considered in' such like cases: I have also perused the order impugned delivered by the Magistrate acquitting the respondents and I find that the reasons for acquittal are cogent and merely because another view of the evidence can be taken is no ground to interfere in the acquittal. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. " S.A./R-274/L Petition dismissed.