1969 PLP 325 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 11th April 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑Three cases were registered against the management of the petitioner firm in the course of which the Police took into possession the buses of the firm, but by an order of the Ilaca Magistrate, passed on the 23rd September 1968, the buses were released and placed in the sapurdari of the firm. Later, on the application of the ex‑Chairman of the Board of Management of the firm, the route permits were also taken into possession by the police on the 2nd October 1968, along with the relevant registration books. But again on the 7th October 1968, the Ilaca Magistrate ordered that if the route permits are not required by the police, they should be released on sapurdari to the Management or the firm against a security of Rs. 50,

000. The police, however, it is alleged, made over the route permits to the ex‑Chairman, one Abdul Rahim. The petitioner firm, accordingly, made an application under section 516‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the route permits. This application was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the management of the firm. An appli cation under section 435, Cr. P C. against this order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The petitioner firm then filed a revision petition in the High Court of West Pakistan. This was admitted for regular hearing and the Secretary of the Bar Association, Sheikhupura was appointed as a Receiver for the management of the firm. On the 25th February 1969, however, when the revision petition came up for final hearing, it was reported to the Court that the criminal cases had been "cancelled by the police". The revision petition was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, the Receiver was dicharged and was directed to make over the relevant documents to the parties for whom he had collected the same. Subsequently, the petitioner‑firm,, on coming to know that the cases had not been actually cancelled invoked the inherent jurisdic tion of the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the restoration of the revision petition. This application came up for hearing on the 14th March 1969, when an Inspector of the C. I. A. Staff, Sheikhupura, made a statement before the Court confirming that the criminal cases had actually been cancelled. In this view of the matter the Court held that the question of restoration did not arise. But after this the Court went on to make an order that a few route permits which had not till then been made over to the Receiver, would be made over to him and the latter would in his turn make them over to the C. I. A. Inspector to be retained by him along with the other route permits "till the decision of the Civil Court or the agreement of the parties, as the case may be." Aggrieved, by this 'order, the petitioner firm has come up for special leave to appeal to this Court and it is contended on its behalf that after the restoration application was dismissed, the Court had no further jurisdiction to make any other order, for, the inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. could not be invoked in cases where there was specific provision in the Cede of Criminal Procedure itself fox meeting the situation. In the present case, it is suggested, that section 516‑A, 517 and 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code made adequate provisions for such cases and, therefore, Court had acted without jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. It is, no doubt, true that where express provision is made in the Code itself for a particular purpose, recourse cannot be had to the inherent jurisdiction to achieve the same purpose, shahkot Bus but at the same time it has to be pointed out that the Service inherent power of the High Court is of a very wide and State indefinable nature and in exercise of this power the High Court can make all such orders which may be necessary to do real and substantial justice and prevent abuse of the process Rahman, C .l of the Court, subject only to the limitation that it cannot override an express provision of the Code. In the present case it is clear that neither section 516‑A nor 517, Cr. P. C. applied, for, no case was at all sent up to any Court nor was any enquiry or trial commenced. The orders passed by the llaca Magistrate were presumably under section 523, Cr. P. C., but even this, in terms did not apply, for, here the position was that there was a dispute pending between the members of the firm concerning its management and control. In the circumstances, it appears to us that the High Court was right in directing the route permits to be retained by the C. I. A. Inspector in his custody subject to any order of a competent Civil Court. This does not mean that the route permits will be retained by the Inspector of C. I. A. until the final decision in the civil litigation. It will be open to the parties to get an order from a competent Civil Court for the custody of the route permits during the pendency of the litigation. The High Court has, in this case, after refusing to restore the revisional application, merely made consequential orders which the justice of the case demanded. No legitimate exception can be taken thereto. This petition, is, accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.