1968 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner was arrested on 10th February 1967 by Mr. Muhammad Yaqub, Regional Controller of Civil Aviation, Northern Region, Lahore Airport, for having trespassed into the apron, which was a restricted area. From the report admitted by him it appears that he was invested with powers of a Magistrate 1st Class and had arrested the petitioner for an offence under section 447, P. P. C. had taken cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In this petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. seeking quashment of proceedings, the learned counsel has raised the contention that the Regional Controller had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Conciliation Courts established under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance of 1961. He places reliance on the provision contained in section 3(1) of the Ordinance which reads as follows:‑ "3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908)‑ (a) all cases falling under Part 1 of the Schedule shall, save as otherwise provided, hereinafter be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance, and no civil or criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to try any such case, and (b) - -- - - - - -"

3. While admitting that an offence under section 447, P.P.C. is included in the offences mentioned in Part I of the Schedule, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contends that section 18 would make it competent for the Regional Controller invested with magisterial powers to take cogni zance of the case, unless he himself directs that the same may be referred to the Conciliation Court. Section 18 reads as follows:‑

118. Investigation by Police.‑Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the police from investigating a cognizable case by reason of the fact that the case relates to an offence specified in section A of Part I of the Schedule, but if any such case is taken to a criminal Court, such Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that it be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance." As against this it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the exception created by section 18 is covered by the expression "save as otherwise provided" occurring in section 3 of the Ordinance, yet its application is only confined to such cases as have been sent to a Criminal Court after investigation by the police, and since in the instant case the Magistrate himself took cognizance of the matter, this provision could not be invoked in defence or justification of his trial of the case.

4. Having considered tire arguments advanced by both sides, I am inclined to think that on a reasonable constructional of the provision contained in section 18, it would also cover case in which the Magistrate himself takes cognizance of the offence, as obviously there appears to be no reason why a cog nizance by the police should take precedence over the cognizance by the Magistrate himself. However, in view of the fact that the case is not being tried by the same Magistrate himself who took cognizance and is now pending with his successor, any possible objection on the ground of prejudice to the petitioner would be set at rest.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.