1991 PLP 1773 (MLD)

Nemo for Petitioner. Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Respondent No.1. S.D. Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1991. The facts giving rise to these two Criminal Revisions Nos.326 of 1987 filed by Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Criminal Revision No.402 of 1987 filed by Ahmad Khan petitioner, briefly, are that a case under sections 420, 468, 471 and 474, P.P.C. was registered against Ahmad Khan petitioner. After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat. On the conclusion ~ of the trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, convicted the petitioner under sections 468, 471 and 474, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof one month's R.I. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Ahmad Khan filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the offence under section 474, P.P.C. was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. He accordingly accepted the appeal and remanded the case with the direction that the same be sent up to the Court of Session. On remand, the Magistrate 1st Class sent up the case to the Court of Session, who entrusted the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. Ahmad Khan petitioner, made an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground that since the alleged forged document was used in the judicial proceedings, therefore, no Court could take cognizance of the same except on a complaint by the Court in which the forged document was filed or used. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, Mst. Shamim Akhtar complainant and Ahmad Khan accused, both have filed separate revisions. I propose to dispose of these two revisions through this single judgment.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanding the case to the Magistrate 1st Class with the direction to sent up the same to the Court of Session on the ground of legal infirmity, so I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that offence under section 474, P.P.C. could also be tried by Magistrate Section 30, therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the direction given by him to the Magistrate for sending up the case to the Court of Session were/are wrong and illegal. So the impugned order cannot sustain.

3. For what has been said above, the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate Section 30 concerned for trial in accordance with law. Ahmad Khan, petitioner, may question the authority of the Court to try the case against him in view of the restraint contained in sections 476 and 195, Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate will decide the question of his jurisdiction without being influenced by whatever has been said in the order, dated 8-6-1987 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./S-943/L Case remanded.