P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

Respondent through Jail. Date of hearing : 10th December, 1962. This is a reference dated the 4th of September 1962 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, Mr. Mushtaq Ali Kazi, requesting this Court to quash the order of commitment dated the 29th of March 1962 passed by the learned Extra Joint Sub‑Judge and First Class Magistrate at Hyderabad.

2. The accused Omar was challaned by the S. H. O. Shapur Shaker under sections 302, P. P. C. and 19‑E of the Arms Act before the learned Sub‑Judge and F. C. Magistrate, Shahdad pur having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It appears from the letter of the District Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated the 26th of January 1962, (page 17 of the record) that Government by its Notification No. 13/167‑H/Judl‑TI/61, dated 31‑10‑1961, directed that the case against the present accused and against one Taju and others under sections 385, 397/307, P. P. C. be tried within the premises of the Central Prison, Hyderabad, by Syed Abdul Rehman, Extra Joint Sub‑Judge and F. C. M., Hyderabad by name. In consequence of this order, which was conveyed to the District Magistrate Hyderabad by file District Magistrate, Sanghar, Syed Abdul Rehman, the learned Civil Judge and Special Magistrate, proceeded to hear the evidence and framed the charge dated the 29th of March 1962, already referred to. It is significant that Syed Abdul Rahman, Joint Sub‑Judge and F. C. M. Hyderabad, designated himself as the Extia Joint Sub Judge and F. C. M. Sanghar at Hyderabad, for purposes of the charge and the commitment to the Court of Sessions at Hyderabad on the said charge.

3. The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sanghar, is to the effect that the commitment to the Sessions Court at Sanghar in the Tharparkar district by the learned Extra Joint Sub‑Judge and F. C. M. Syed Abdul Rehman, was erroneous, since the case was transferred from the judicial district of Sanghar by the Government and sent to another judicial district, namely, the Hyderabad District, where it was ordered to be heard and further proceedings taken.

4. Mr. Murtaza Hassan for the State has conceded that the commitment by the learned Extra Joint Sub‑Judge and F. C. M.. Hyderabad to the Sessions Court of Sanghar was erroneous and illegal in law. On the face of it this could not have been done. The charge with the direction as modified will be maintained, and it is further ordered that the case be tried by the Sessions Court of Hyderabad. This appears to be the best course to adopt as primarily the object with which the accused was ordered to be tried within the premises of the Central Prison Hyderabad would be further achieved by his being tried within the territorial juris diction of the Sessions Court of Hyderabad.

5. The result is that the reference of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tharparkar is accepted, that the committal order dated the 20th March 1962 is maintained together with the charge dated the 29th March 1962, with the modified direction that the accused be tried by the Sessions Court of Hyderabad, and be disposed of according to law. Answered accordingly. K. B. A./A. H. Reference accepted.