P (PLP)

SAKER, J. C.‑

This revision petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Political Agent and Magistrate, 1st Class, Quetta‑Pishin, dated 11th May, 1950, whereby the accused petitioners have been committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial for an offence falling under section 377, Pakistan Penal Code. The revision petition before me is based on the fact that the learned Magistrate did not state his grounds for committing the accused and that the case is not exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and that the failure of the learned Magistrate to give reasons for committal amounts to an irregularity. Neither of these grounds are sufficient for me to accept the present petition for the order of the learned Magistrate indicates quite clearly the grounds why he committed this case to the Court of Sessions, as he states that a prima facie case has been made against both the accused and he considers his powers were inadequate to inflict sufficient sentence‑in view of 'the gravity of the offence. The third ground Is that the accused petitioners have bad no opportunity of adducing evidence before the Committal Magistrate. Oh this point I observe that the learned Magistrate has mentioned in his order that the accused stated before him that they wished to produce their evidence in the Court of Session. While it is, incumbent upon a Committal Magistrate to call upon the accused to furnish a list of persons whom they wish to summon in their defence at the trial in the Sessions Court, the Magistrate is not empowered to compel the accused to disclose the names of their witnesses. In effect this means that accused persons when before the committing Magistrate have the right to reserve their defence or to refuse to disclose the names, of their witnesses they intend to call. It is clear, that no irregularity has been committed by the Magistrate in this case. The other grounds as set forth in the petition before me mainly relate to the fact that the evidence does not disclose' a prima facie case against the accused. With this I am not disposed, to agree as I have read the learned Magistrate's order carefully and I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out. On the general subject of the revisional powers of this Court, I would further observe that those powers are purely discretionary. It is permissible for this Court to interfere at any stage in a pending trial provided there is sufficient material to assume that manifest or patent injustice has been dope. While the revisional powers of this Court may properly be used in suitable cases in which the trial has 'been complete, it would be unusual for this Court to exercise its powers of revision in a case which has not yet come before a Court of Sessions for trial. The proceeding in the case before me are those of committal only and the trial of the ac cused‑petitioners does not start until the case is before the Court of Session. The accused persons, who have been committed to stand trial in the Court of Session. have not yet been found guilty, if they are found guilty they still have the right to call upon this Court to exercise its powers of revision or appeal. In order, therefore to attract the revisional powers of this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, in a pending trial the case must be of a most exceptional nature. There is no indication from the record in this case that the circumstances are exceptional. The Committal Magistrate has passed an order committing the accused‑petitioners to stated their trial in the Court of Session. He has gone into the, case at some length and in some detail and the fact that be has committed them to stand their trial in no way prejudices the right of the accused in the trial which is to take place. I can find no ground for assuming that any injustice at this stage has been done and I am not prepared to accept the petition before me. It follows, therefore, that the petition is rejected and the accused‑petitioners will stand their trial as directed by the Committal Magistrate in the Court of Session. In view of my order in this case, consideration of the application for stay of proceedings does not arise and it is also rejected. A.H. Petition rejected.