P L D 1952 Baluchistan 37 (PLP)

R. K. M. SAKER, J. C.‑This is a petition for revision under the provisions of sections 435/439, Cr. P. C. against the order of the Sessions Judge in Baluchistan, dated the 2‑5th August 1951, who on revision upheld the order of the City Magistrate, Quetta, dated the 30th May 1951, discharging the accused‑respondent under section 209, Cr. P. C. of an offence under section 307, P. P. C. Before I proceed to examine the records of the case and take into consideration the arguments adduced before me, it is first necessary for me to state the circumstances under which this Court will entertain revision. petitions of this nature. Apart from all other considerations, it is generally accepted that after a petition for revision has been dismissed another petition on the same matter cannot be entertained. It has been held that one such a petition has been dismissed for default no High Court has power to restore it, though it is a matter for argument whether a fresh petition for the same relief can be filed. Generally speaking it might be said that on grounds of justice and equity Courts should discourage the agitation of the same matter once again before another judge. While this principle was enunciated in regard to the judges of the High Court it should, I feel, be applicable where the Sessions Court and the District Magistrate have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over matters relating to revision petitions under section 435, Cr. P. C. For that' reason I consider it is not proper for this Court to encourage a revision petition to be filed before it, if the grounds for revision are identical to the grounds already adduced before the lower revisional Court, even if the powers of this Court are invoked under section 439, Cr. P. C. I have listened carefully to the arguments by learned coun sel on behalf of the petitioner and from the judgment .of the lower revisional Court it is abundantly clear to me that identi cally the same arguments have been used in support of the petition for revision now filed. For reasons given in his judg ment the learned Sessions judge rejected the petition and a study of his judgment shows that his reasons therefor are sound and logical. No fresh set of circumstances has arisen which would attract the intervention of this Court in the proceedings, nor would I be prepared to take a different view of the evi dence or of the law than that which has been taken by the lower revisional Court since the powers of both Courts are concurrent. As I have held elsewhere, it is not the duty of this Court to sit in judgment on the verdict of a lower Court exercising concurrent revisional powers. In further examining the circumstances under which revi sional Court will exercise their power, it has even been held that though some illegality may have been committed this would not necessarily attract the revisional powers of a High Court. In this case, however, there are concurrent findings by two lower Courts and as the matter has already been fully consi dered by the learned Sessions judge on the revisional side, I am satisfied that no injustice has been done. Accordingly I decline to interfere and the petition for revision is dismissed. In reviewing the position in general as regards the submis sion of revision petitions to this Court, it must, I think, be made clear that since both the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have concurrent powers with this Court under section 435, Cr. P. C. it should not be open to any person to attempt to use the revisional powers of this Court as if they were appellate powers when once the matter has been decided by one of the lower revisional Courts. While there may be no legal bar to the submission of a revision petition to this Court, even though a similar petition may have been, dismissed by a lower Court, I will be most reluctant to exercise my powers unless some fresh set of circumstances has arisen which were not considered by the lower revisional Court ; or unless it can be shown that the decision is obviously perverse as to the facts or the law. In brief, it will be necessary for a petitioner either to approach this Court direct, provided there are special reasons for his not approaching the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate in the first instance ; or, if he is dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower revisional Court, he must be in a position to show that there are fresh grounds for me to exercise my powers of revision. Unless these ingredients are present, the powers of revision of this Court are unlikely to be attracted. Parties' counsel present. Announced. A. H Petition dismissed.