The petitioner is a complainant in a case registered under section 302, P. P. C. In which respondent No. 2 is an accused person. On 27th December, 1976 respondent No. 2 filed an application through the District Magistrate for grant of better class in the prison where he was being detained. The District Magistrate asked for a report from the Police and Ilaqa Magistrate. The matter ultimately came back to him whereon he referred the same to the learned Sessions Judge with the following remarks : "Sh. Muhammad Iqbal son of Haji Hussain Bakhsh under trial prisoner in the above-noted case has applied for grant of `B' class in jail. As provided in paragraph 249 of the Punjab Jail Manual it is for the trial Court to classify the under-trial prisoner. The trial Court in this case is the Court of Sessions.
His application with its enclosures and the report of the S. S. P. And the Ilaqa Magistrate, are, therefore, sent herewith for further necessary action in accordance with the provision of the Punjab Jail Manual quoted above."
The learned Sessions Judge issued a notice to the Public Prosecutor. He took up the case on 25th April, 1977 and in view of the report of the police and recommendation of the Magistrate regarding the status of respondent No. 2 allowed him a better class. The petitioner made a review application but the same was dismissed. He has now filed the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel relies on part 2 of rule 249 of the Punjab Jail Manual, to say that as the order of the learned Sessions Judge has not been approved by the District Magistrate, it could not have been operative. The relevant portion reads as under"Rule 249.
Before an undertrial prisoner is brought before a competent Court it will be at the discretion of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to properly classify him. After he is brought before the Court he will be classified by that Court subject to the approval of the District Magistrate."
3. According to the learned counsel an approval by the District Magistrate is a must even though the order classifying is passed by the Sessions Judge or this Court. Reliance was placed on Kenyon v. Eastborn (1) (1888) 57 L T Q B 455) and Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor (2) AIR 1936 P C 253 ) where it is provided that where the law requires doing of a particular thing in a particular way that should be done that way or not at all. The learned counsel also referred to section 31 of the Prisons Act, 1894 to say that when every undertrial prisoner is entitled to get at his cost, all the necessary articles, subject to the examination by the Superintendent Jail, there is no question of providing free of cost to the respondent all those facilities in a better class. He objected to the respondent No. 2 being benefited at the expense of the State. It was, however, conceded .That better housing facilities could not have been imported by the respondent.
4. As regards his locus stands the learned counsel argued that as the witnesses in this case are being overawed by the facilities provided to the respondent by the State, the case, in which the petitioner is complainant, will be prejudiced. He urged that the respondent who was a criminal, facing trial of 8 cases, involving heinous crimes, is not entitled to a better class.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General contested the application and stated that when a Court superior to the District Magistrate has to classify an undertrial prisoner, it need not seek his approval. He argued that even that technical objection of the petitioner could be easily met as the trial Court had approved the grant of better class and the District Magistrate who had forwarded the case, had not objected to it. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the omission would in no way show that the District Magistrate would not have approved, if the case had been sent back to him. He further submitted that as even convicts can be given `B' or 'C' Class, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that a person who is involved in a number of cases should be deprived of the facility of a better class even if he is classified for the same.
6. After hearing the learned counsel 1 ,find that the petitioner, even if he is a complainant, has no locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. His case, in no way, can be covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Fazal Din's case ( 1)PLD1969SC223 ). The petitioner is neither suffering by the order impugned in these proceedings nor would he get any benefit if the order is set aside. His interest is in the fair trial of the case which will not be affected or jeopardized by the better class facilities provided to the respondent in the four wall of the prison. The objection that the respondent is brought without handcuffs in the Court and that this affects the morale of the witnesses is not at all well founded.
There is nothing in rule 249 that an under-trial prisoner who has been given better class be brought to the Court without handcuffs.
In view of the above, this petition is not maintainable and therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.