1983 P Cr (PLP)

This revision petition is directed against orders dated 29th November, 1981 and 28th December, 1981 respectively passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court and the Sub‑Judge Magistrate 1st Class Bagh. A case under section 307, Penal Code read with section 15 of the Islaami Tazeerati Act was presenter) in the Tehsil Criminal Court for trial. In the alleged incident a fire‑arm owned by the petitioner was used by the offender, Sarfraz by name, who on admission of his guilt was Sentenced to 'Hakoomat‑e‑Adal' amounting to Rs. 12,000 which amount of 'Diyat' was paid to the complainant in the open Court. Against this conviction no revision or appeal, as the case may be, was made by the convict to a Court of competent jurisdiction. By this impugned order the fire‑arm used in the commission of the, offence was confiscated by the trial Court. The petitioner being owner and the licence holder of the arm confiscated‑a weapon of offence‑has come up to this Court in revision praying for release of the arm confiscated. No revision against the order of a Tehsil Criminal Court is competent to the High Court. Therefore, to this extent the revision petition, stands dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate is illegal on its very face. A complaint under sections 21 and 23 of the Arms Act was made) against the petitioner who was brought by the police itself before the) Court. The police was not authorised by law to bring the accused‑peti tioner before the Court without first issue of process by the trial Court. The trial Court instead of putting the accused to examination under section 242 wrote a very brief order showing that the petitioner had noth ing to say against the complaint. The trial of the case was not properly held by the Magistrate‑who appears not to know even the elementary law to be dealt with as warranted. No procedure was at all resorted to by the Magistrate while dealing with the case before whom the accused‑peti tioner was brought by the police forcibly to stand his trial before hand. On a complaint, if the conditions and rules as envisaged in the aforesaid sections of the Arms Act were found violated by the Magistrate, a summon was to issue to the petitioner for his appearance before the Court to stand a trial. Nothing of trial of the case was done by the Magistrate and it was thus without a trial that the accused‑petitioner was convicted and sentenced thereof. The Magistrate has quite a long service at his credit but he seems to have learnt nothing of law. He is directed to study law so as to properly apply the same in the administration of justice. That being so, the revision petition against the impugned order of the Magistrate is accepted and that is set aside. The complaint is sent back to the Magistrate with the direction that after going through the relevant law its cognizance may be taken according to law. Petition accepted.