IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Misc.Application No.S-137 of 2018

Applicant                    :                    Saifal son of Bagan Mugheri

Through Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate

Respondents             : Through  Messers  Rafique  Ahmed  Abro  &

Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate(s) for private respondent,

                     The State through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar,

A.P.G.

Date of hearing         :                    26.09.2018             

Date of order             :                    26.09.2018                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for passing of instant order are that on filing of Criminal Misc.Applicatoin by the private respondent, the  learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shahdadkot @ Qamber, passed the following order;

“I” am at the humble view that it is the specific domain of Mukhtiarkar Taluka Kamber to carry out the demarcation of site after adopting the due course of law and he will have the privilege to call the “Otaras” from the survey department in respect of survey numbers to which have been disclosed by the respondents No.3 to 5 so that the actual dispute is to be removed and the application in hand is hereby disposed of with the observation to issue the directions to the Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Kamber to call the “Otaras” from the survey department and to constitute the team for carrying out the demarcation at site and so also he will make a request to the Senior Superintendent of police through Deputy Commissioner Kamber-Shahdadkot so that the sufficient manpower is to be deployed at site at the time of carrying out the demarcation and the task of demarcation is to be completed in accordance with law”.  

2.                    The applicant being aggrieved of above said order has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Qamber Shahdadkot @ Qamber, was having no authority to have involved him in determination of civil right of the parties by exercising his jurisdiction as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

4.                    It is contended by learned counsel(s) for the private respondent that the revenue officials failed to discharge their lawful obligation. It is why, the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Kamber, came into aid of the private respondent by directing the revenue officials to discharge their lawful duty by way of impugned order, the same according to them is not illegal. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application.  

5.                    Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order, the same according to him has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shahdadkot @ Qamber, without lawful jurisdiction.

6.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                    The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace apparently has passed the impugned order by taking advantage of Section                22-A(6)(iii) Cr.PC, which reads as under;

“[(6) An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding.   

(i) Non-registration of criminal case;

(ii) Transfer of investigation from one police officer to another; and

(iii) neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties.]”

8.                    There is nothing in above section of law which may have authorized an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to issue direction to revenue authorities to demarcate the site, by exercising his powers u/s.22-A(6)(iii) Cr.PC rather the provision is quite clear and obvious and it is aimed to provide a watch over acts and omissions of police only. It may be observed here that “jurisdiction” is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties which could be vested by the law alone and absence of such power would be sufficient to render such order as “without jurisdiction”. Reference in that respect may well be placed upon the case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458) wherein it is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“… wherein this Court held that by “jurisdiction” is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties…..

9.                    Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code, did vest any power in Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to hear and decide a complaint of negligence by any other official authority but police hence it would be safe to conclude that any such direction would be ‘without jurisdiction’. In these circumstances, the impugned order having been passed without lawful jurisdiction could not be sustained, it is set aside.

10.                  The instant Crl.Misc.Application is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

.