1985 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, Art.9‑‑Writ jurisdic tion, invocation of‑‑Impugned order passed by a competent authority having jurisdiction in matter, in a lawful manner‑‑Such order, held could not be interfered with by High Court in its writ jurisdiction‑‑High Court, held further, having no power or authority to enhance a legal sentence even though lenient, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdic tion. Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 & 148.‑ [Sentence]. Khurshid Bibi v. Muhammad Amin P L D 1967 SC 97; Muhammad Siddiq v. Ghafoor etc. P L D 1971 SC 192; Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 134 and Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail P L D 1981 S C 246 ref. Ch. Abdul Shakoor for Petitioner. Bahadur Ali petitioner got a case registered vide F.I.R. No.88 dated 4‑4‑1980 under sections 307/325/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Kamalia, district Toba Tek Singh. It was alleged by him that Gulzar respondent No.l armed with hatchet, Nawaz respondent No.2 and Sharif respondent No. 3 armed with sticks alongwith their co‑accused, who also had sticks in their hands, caused injuries to Bahadur Ali complainant as well as to Sharif and Bashir P.Ws. Bahadur Ali petitioner received 10 injuries by blunt weapons, out of which one injury on the right leg was grievous in nature, while rest of the injuries were simple. Sharif P.W received 12 injuries by blunt weapon on his person while Bashir Ahmad P.W received one sharp‑edged weapon injury and 12 blunt weapon injuries on his person. All these injuries were of simple nature. The three respondents and their co‑accused were challaned by the police and tried by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh. Gulzar, Nawab and Sharif respondents were sentenced under sections 307/34, P.P.C. to undergo two years' R.I. plus a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default one month's R.I. each. Their co‑accused were, however, acquitted. The convicts filed appeal against their conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh. Bahadur All petitioner also filed a revision petition for enhancement of sentence of the convicted respondents Nos.l to

3. Learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh dismissed the appeal of Gulzar etc. respondents vide judgment dated 9‑7‑1984 'and maintained their conviction and sentence. The revision of Bahadur Ali was also dismissed by the same judgment with an observation that "since they had to face protracted trial the sentence already awarded to them appears to be alright". Bahadur Ali petitioner‑complainant has come up in this constitutional petition against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh dated 9‑7‑1984, by which the revision petition was dismissed, with a prayer that the sentence awarded to respondents Nos.l to 3 may be enhanced considerably.

2. I have heard the learned counsel. Respondents Nos.l to 3 and their co‑accused were prosecuted for an occurrence which took place on 3‑4‑1980 at Isha prayer time. They all were acquitted by the trial Magistrate on 16‑9‑1982 but the case was remanded, on a revision by Bahadur Ali petitioner for re‑trial, by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29‑6‑1983. After re‑trial the three respondents were convicted on 2-2-1984, whereas their co-accused were acquitted. Their appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 9-7-1984 which also disposed of the revision petition. It will be thus clear that the respondents suffered protracted trial since the day of occurrence. It was contended by the learned counsel that in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded by both the Courts below was extremely lenient and, as such, required to be enhanced.

3. I have heard the learned counsel at great length and I am of the view that that this petition is not competent. The sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court was legal. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentence awarded to the respondents, though lenient, was a legal sentence which the trial Magistrate was competent to pass. Learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh gave cogent reasons which are supported by the facts in maintaining the sentence and for refusing to enhance the same. I find that the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any legal error in applying law or appraising evidence before him. He had the jurisdiction'/ authority to maintain the conviction and sentence of the respondents Nos.l to

3. He also had the jurisdiction to refuse to enhance the sentence of respondents Nos.l to

3. The impugned order was, therefore, with jurisdiction and lawful authority and it cannot be said that the) learned Sessions Judge in any way acted illegally or with material irregularity justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the impugned order is passed by a competent authority having jurisdiction in the matter in a lawful manner, it can decide the same rightly or even wrongly. The order which is passed with jurisdiction and in a lawful manner cannot be impugned in this Court in writ jurisdiction. In support of this view reference is made to Khurshid Bibi v. Muhammad Amin P L D 1967 S C 97, Muhammad Siddiq v. Ghafoor etc. P L D 1971 S C 192, Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 134 and Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail P L D 1981 S C

246. This. Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, has no power/authority to enhance a legal sentence passed by a competent Court, even though the said sentence is lenient. In view of this, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. S. G. D. Petition dismissed.