2000 PLP 1830 (MLD)

(b) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 33/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Petitioner who was convicted and sentenced under S:33/34 of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, could avail provisions contained in S. 412, Cr.P.C. or in alternate could avail revisional jurisdiction, but he had directly challenged his conviction through Constitutional petition‑‑‑Equally effective and efficacious remedy being available to accused/petitioner under ordinary law of land, Constitutional petition filed by him was not maintainable. M.M. Arshad for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1999. This writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated 13‑4‑1999 passed by Senior Special Magistrate, Parks and Horticultural Authority, Lahore, whereby, upon confessional statement, the petitioner was convicted under section 34 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 and sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo one month S. I. It is contended in this writ petition that the petitioner could not be convicted as he was only an employee of Cooperative Society known as Pakistan Cycle Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.; that the complaint was ill‑founded and did not make out any offence because there was an agreement between TIPA i.e. predecessor‑in‑interest of Parks and Horticultural Authority whereby, the poles and boarding signs could be installed at Chouburji Chowk and other places in Lahore; that agreement had expired on 28‑2‑1999 and was renewable within 30 days, however, the renewal was not made but. the sign boards and poles were illegally removed and the petitioner was convicted as aforesaid.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since it was a civil contractual liability, therefore, no criminal offence was made out so as to call for conviction of the petitioner under section 33 or 34 respectively of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975: is further contended that the provisions of those sections were not attracts to the facts of the case and that the confessional statement was recorded after the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on a blank paper.

3. I have considered the foregoing facts and have also gone through the certified copy of the impugned order appearing at page No. 17 as Annexure 'B' . It shows that the charge‑sheet was read out to the petitioner/accused who had made a clean breast of having committed the offence. A copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure ' D' whereas, the copy of the charge‑sheet appears as page

22. The name of the petitioner is clearly written over there and a charge was specifically framed showing that he had put up a board and thereby violated the provisions contained in p section 33/34 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. To that effect, the petitioner pleaded guilty and contended that he would not lead any defence. Likewise, the impugned order shows that the petitioner had put up a board illegally to which he confessed and as such committed the offence mentioned in section 34 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. The petitioner if aggrieved of the impugned judgment may avail the provisions contained in section, 412 Cr.P.C. to impugn the extent and illegality of sentence or in alternate avail the revisional jurisdiction, if so advised, if the impugned judgment was allegedly without jurisdiction, perverse or illegal. Since equally an effective and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under the ordinary law of the land, therefore, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed in limine C. M. No. l of 1899 stands disposed of with the disposal of the main petition. H.B.T./M‑121/L Petition dismissed.