1968 P Cr (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate, Multan, whereby an order of a Second Class Magistrate, Kabirwala, discharging the petitioner under section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was set aide on the ground that the case was wrongly sent to a Magistrate of the Second Class, for trial. The criminal proceedings were started against the first four respondents herein upon the allegation that they had fraudulently obtained verifications of their claims for more than what they were entitled to. They were challaned under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code to the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Khanewal, who after recording some evidence, transferred the case to the Tehsildar and Second Class Magistrate, Kabirwala as in his opinion, the case fell under section 407, P. P. C. The latter, after recording the evidence of 9 more witnesses, came to the conclusion that there was no case against the said respondents. He discharged them, but found that a case under section 471, P. P. C. had been made out only against Ghulam Qadir, son of Nanak. The latter's case was, accordingly, sent to the Resident Magistrate, for trying him under section 471, P. P. C. Against this order two revision petitions were filed under section 435, Cr. P. C. before the District Magistrate, Multan, one by Ghulam Qadir against the order directing framing of charge against him, under section 471, P. P. C. and the other by one Sharafuddin, son of Ali Bakhsh, against the order discharging the first four respondents herein. The District Magistrate, as already stated, took the view that the case had been wrongly transferred to the Tehsildar who was only a Second Class Magistrate, for trial and set aside the entire order. Against this order, the respondents went up to the High Court. The learned Single Judge took the view that the order of the District Magistrate himself suffered from an illegality, in so far as there is nothing on the record to indicate that he had, at any stage, directed notices to Issue to the said respondents, before setting aside the order of discharge. Thereafter, the learned Judge went on to consider whether In the facts and circumstances of this case, the proceedings should be allowed to continue and came to the conclusion that since it is now conceded that the said respondents no longer hold any land in excess of their entitlement, it was not desirable that they should be made to go through the agony of criminal trial any longer. The High Court was also inclined to agree with the Tehsildar that the evidence on the record had made out no prima facie case against them. The order of the Tehsildar was, accordingly, restored and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. Learned counsel, appearing in support of the petition, sought to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that no notices had been issued to the respondents, for, it appears that the order of the District Magistrate itself recited that the respondents had been beard. But this point, it appears, had been considered by the High Court and notwithstanding this recital in the order of the District Magistrate, the High Court has taken the view that the order of the District Magistrate was not passed after due notice to the said respondents. As regards the quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel does not seriously challenge the quashment but contends that there are certain observations in the judgment of the High Court, which might prejudice his client to other proceedings. In particular, he has complained against the following observation of the High Court; - "The assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that at the moment they held no land in excess of their entitlement, was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent." It is contended that this does not give the complete picture. Hence it was likely to give a wrong impression, for, it appears that the respondents have again since moved the Central Record Office, contending that the excess area taken away from them bad not been properly calculated and the matter is still pending before the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office. The correctness of the above observation of the High Court is not however, challenged. All that is said is that it does not give the complete picture. But if this is so and any clarification is needed, this clarification can be made in the pending proceedings by producing the relevant orders to show as to how much excess area had been taken away from them. This cannot however, be a ground for interfering with the order of the High Court which, otherwise, is unexceptional. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.