1994 PLP 181 (MLD)

Through this writ petition Muhammad Ashfaq has voiced his grievance against the judgments of the learned trial Court and also that of the Revisional Court whereby the respondents 3 and 4 were acquitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and has prayed for the declaration that the order passed by them are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and also for setting aside the same.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of one Musa at a monthly rent of Rs.300. He used to sell building material and other relevant articles in the said shop and he had advanced Rs.1,500 to the owner of the shop. According to the petitioner after some time he wanted to devour up the amount and to eject the petitioner by force and, therefore, in between the night of 28/29-6-1984 Muhammad Musa alongwith his son Muhammad Asghar and respondents Nos3 and 4 broke upon the shop of the petitioner and took away his hundred bags of cement, four wooden planks, etc. On the application of the petitioner a case under section 457/380, P.P.C. was registered only against respondents Nos.3 and 4 and other accused were let off. The case was tried by respondent No.1 and the trial lingered on for six years and ultimately the accused i.e. respondents Nos3 and 4 were acquitted vide impugned order, dated 9-10-1990. The petitioner firstly moved the learned District Magistrate under section 417, Cr.P.C. but the request was declined and the Government refused to file any appeal against the acquittal. The petitioner then filed a revision petition against acquittal before the learned Sessions Judge which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara who vide his judgment dated 22-4-1992 acquitted the respondents Nos3 and

4. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue on the merits of the case and wanted the reappraisal of the evidence of the Courts below but when confronted with the competency of this writ petition whether High Court can interfere with orders or judgments of the-final Tribunals or Courts and can this Court embark upon a reappraisal of evidence and proceed as if it were hearing an appeal from a subordinate Court. The learned counsel contended that there is no clog put in by Article 199 of the Constitution upon the High Court to go into the merits of the case even if the case has been decided by the final Tribunals or Courts. It was also argued that High Court being a Court of record has powers even to quash the investigation and the F.I.R. which is the root of criminal case so similarly it can quash the judgments of the Courts below.

4. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the relevant record very minutely. In this case after the registration of the case the trial was held by the learned Assistant Commissioner with the powers of Magistrate First Class, Dipalpur and, he, after recording the prosecution evidence gave an exhaustive judgment whereby he acquitted the accused and District Magistrate, Okara refused to file an appeal holding that the material witnesses in the case had not supported the case of the prosecution and the case property had also not been proved and there being insufficient evidence on record so the accused cannot be convicted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the revision petition filed by the petitioner dismissed the same after appraisal of the evidence as mentioned above.

5. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner the point that emerges for decision is whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere and set aside the judgments passed by the criminal Court in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it by law by declaring it as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

6. Before I proceed to express my view on the aforementioned question it would be proper to mention that prior to the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), the power of revision in cases of acquittal was exercisable only by the High Court under section

439. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, conferred this power, in relation to the accused acquitted by Magistrate, to Sessions Judge.-No second revision lies against his orders, which therefore, becomes final.

7. After the enforcement of revisional powers on Sessions Judges all revisions against judgments of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate lie before them i.e. before the Sessions Judges. This was done only to reduce the burden of the High Court. But it is noticed with some dismay that persons dissatisfied with the judgments of the final Courts under the normal law have taken to challenge them through writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, thereby circumventing the law and defeating the obvious intention Qf the Legislature.

8. The question of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 has come under consideration in number of cases before this Court and it has been repeated held that if a Court or Tribunal set up under the ordinary law has the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect or is not one, at which the High Court would have arrived, does not render the decision without jurisdiction.

9. In view of what has been said above I do not find any force in this writ l petition which is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M-1243/L Petition dismissed.