P L D 1969 Peshawar 193 (PLP)

3. The two accused‑respondents challenged their con victions and sentences in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Hazara. The learned appellate Court by his order dated 10‑1‑69 accepted the appeal and acquitted the accused‑appellants on the ground that the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case for two‑fold reasons : firstly, that the ordinary criminal Court had no jurisdiction in view of Part I, Section A of the Schedule, to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, and, secondly that the transfer of the case by the S. D. M., Haripur to E. A. C., Haripur was without any lawful authority.

4. Chanan Din complainant has come up on revision to this Court, praying that the order of the Sessions Judge, Hazara dated 10‑1‑69 may kindly be set aside and the case be remanded for re‑trial.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law, in holding that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to convict the accused respondents 2 and 3, because the case of the complainant petitioner was triable by the ordinary Criminal Court.

6. As stated above, the complainant‑petitioner had charged the two accused‑respondents for the commission of offences, under sections 352, 427 and 504, P. P. C. Offences under sections 352 and 504 and the offence under section 427, P. P. C., when the value of the property involved does not exceed one hundred rupees, are referable to Conciliation Court only under sub section (1) (a) of section 3 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance). In the complaint the complainant‑petitioner as evaluated his loss to about Rs. 100 and not exceeding that amount. A criminal Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to try the case.

7. The next question arises whether the forwarding of the case to S. D. M., Haripur by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazara, amounts to a transfer of the case under section 17 of the Ordinance. Section 17 provides "

17. Transfer of certain cases.‑(1) Where the Controlling Authority is of the opinion that the circumstances of a case relating to a matter falling under Section A of Part I of the Schedule or under Section A of Part II thereof and pending before a Conciliation Court are such that the public interest and the ends or justice demand its trial in a Criminal Court, the said Authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, withdraw the sama from the Conciliation Court and direct that it be referred to the Criminal Court for trial and disposal. (2) There are three essential ingredients of this section (1) That the case relating to the matter falls under Section A of Part I of the Schedule, (2) That the case is pending before the Conciliation Court and is such that the public interest and the ends of justice demand its trial in a Criminal Court, and (3) That the Controlling Authority withdraws the same from the Conciliation Court and directs that it be referred to a Criminal Court for trial and disposal. In the present case the first ingredient exists, but the other two ingredients are lacking: This case was not pending before the Conciliation Court and as such was not withdrawn from the Conciliation Court for reference to the Criminal Court for trial and disposal. The forwarding of the case by the Deputy Commissioner (Controlling Authority) to a Criminal Court, therefore, is not covered by the provisions of section 17 of the'' Ordinance and it gave no jurisdiction to the Court of Magistrate, Haripur for trial of the case.

8. In view of the above, I affirm the view of the learned appellate Court though for reasons different than given by him that the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. As such, he rightly accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondents.

9. Finding no merits in the revision petition it is hereby dismissed in l1mine. A. E. Petition dismissed.