1995 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

S. 302/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.156 & 561-A-- Physical remand of accused

Refusal by Magistrate

Staff car of the Adviser to Chief Minister involved in the commission of offence was recovered alongwith the klashnikov and other weapon of offence

Magistrate while refusing physical remand of accused did not consider that the police had yet to make further progress in investigation and indirectly patronized the culprit making an effort to destroy the prosecution case by not allowing remand so that the recovery could not be made

Sessions Court rightly keeping in view the circumstances and gravity of offence and involvement of the staff car of the Advisor to Chief Minister in the commission of the offence had set aside the Magistrate's order

Revisional order of Sessions Court did not warrant any interference

Petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. Raizada Naveedul Haq for Petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R.: No.409 of 1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station, Hanjarwal against the petitioner and three other accused on the statement of Ghulam Rasool. After rejection of bail, the petitioner was taken into custody on 29-11-1994. He remained on physical remand for .ten days with the police. Ultimately the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate for physical remand on the ground that the recovery of weapon of offence was yet to be made but the Magistrate refused physical remand and sent the petitioner to judicial lock-up.

2. Against the order of the Magistrate, dated 9-12-1994, respondent filed a revision which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 27-4-1995; hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the discretion was exercised by the learned Magistrate in a lawful manner as such interference in revisional jurisdiction was not called for. It was next contended that the complainant had no locus standi to file the revision when the State was the actual party in the case.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find' no justification to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The contention of learned counsel that the complainant has no locus standi to file revision is misconceived as the revisional jurisdiction as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is very wide and not a power but a duty and jurisdiction has to be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise are brought to the notice of the Court irrespective of law and by whom such facts are brought to its notice.

5. In the instant case the police had recovered the staff car of the Advisor to the Chief Minister, Punjab, which was allegedly involved in the commission of the offence. The police has also recorded Zimni No.29, dated 8-12-1994 after interrogation of respondent No.1. It was also recorded that the alleged weapon of offence Mauzer and Klashnikov type rifle was in the care of Makhdoom Ali Raza, Advisor to the Provincial Chief Minister. The learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration that the police has to make further progress. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly keeping in view the circumstances and gravity of offence and involvement of staff car of the Advisor to the Chief Minister, Punjab accepted the revision petition. I am 8 constrained to observe that the learned Illaqa Magistrate by refusing physical remand of the petitioner indirectly patronized the culprit and made an effort to destroy the prosecution case by not allowing remand so that the recovery could not be made. I, therefore, find no good ground to interfere into the revisional order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The result is that the writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./I-149/L Petition dismissed.