' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 19-5-2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No,6096 of 2004.
2. The averments made in the writ petition show that there was a dispute between the appellant and respondents Nos.1 and 2 regarding purchase of cotton on credit by the appellant who failed to pay the cost/price amounting to Rs,1,17,502 and Rs,1,83,500 the total being Rs,3,01,002. The matter was referred to Anjuman Aartian Grain Market Vehari and before the said Anjuman the appellant on 15-6-2004 admitted that he had to pay the said amount to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and promised to pay the same by 30-6-2004. He further stated that in case he fails to do so, after getting the shop No,56/B Ghalla Mandi Vehari vacated from United Bank Limited, he shall hand over the possession thereof to the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs,8,000 adjustable towards the amount liable to be paid by the appellant till the entire liability was discharged. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount in question to the said respondents in terms of the decision of the said Anjuman, the appellant handed over the possession of the shop to the said respondents on 2-8-2004. Later on the appellant changed his mind and attempted to retake the possession illegally on which the said respondents filed a suit for injunction against the appellant. In the meanwhile the appellant on 15-10-2004 moved an application under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge Vehari in his capacity as the Justice of Peace vide order dated 4-11-2004 issued direction for the registration of a case against the respondents and further directed the S.H.O. To restore possession of the said shop to the appellant.
3. The order dated 4-11-2004 was challenged by respondents Nos.l and 2 in Writ Petition No,6096 of 2004 on the ground that the learned Justice of Peace at the most could issue orders for registration of a case but could neither interfere nor could direct the S.H.O. To interfere in the possession of the writ petitioners in the said shop particularly when an interim injunction issued by the Civil Court existed in the field whereby the appellant in the I.C.A. Had been restrained from interfering in the possession of the said respondents. The learned Judge in Chamber after hearing the arguments at length observed that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code whereby the Justice of Peace could direct the S.H.O. For handing over the possession of property to any party. Hence, the impugned order to the extent it pertained to the delivery of possession of the shop to the appellant was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and the same was set aside. Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellant has challenged the same through the instant I.C.A.
4. The main crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber was not sustainable in law as the order of the learned Justice of Peace whereby a direction was given to the S.H.O. To hand over the possession of the shop to the appellant was in accordance with law and the same was fully covered under section 22-A(3)(b), Cr.P.C. And that the order being an administrative order was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the learned Justice of Peace had no power under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. To order restoration of possession of the shop to appellant and that the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the Intra-Court Appeal was strictly in accordance with law.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
' Before proceeding further, sections 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C. Are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: "22-A. Powers of Justices of the Peace.---(1) A Justice of the Peace for any local area shall, for the purposes of making an arrest having within such area all the powers of a Police Officer referred to in section 54 and an officer-in-charge of the police-station referred to in section 55.
(2) A Justice of the Peace making an arrest in exercise of any powers under subsection (1) shall, forthwith, take or cause to be taken the person arrested before the officer-in-charge of the nearest police-station and furnish such officer with a report as to the circumstances of the arrest and such officer shall thereupon re-arrest the person.
(3) A Justice of the Peace for any local area shall have powers, within such area, to call upon any member of the police force on duty to aid him---
(a) in taking or preventing the escape of any person who has participated in the commission of any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having so participated; and
(b) in the prevention of crime in general and, in particular, in the prevention of a breach of the peace or a disturbance of the public tranquility.
(4) Where a member of the police force on duty has been called upon to render aid under subsection (3), such call shall be deemed to have been made by a competent authority.
(5) A Justice of the Peace for any local area may, in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Provincial Government--
(a) issue a certificate as to the identity of any person residing within such area, or
(b) verify any document brought before him by any such person, or
(c) attest any such document required by or under any law for the time being in force to be attested by a Magistrate, and until the contrary is proved, any certificate so issued shall be presumed to be correct and any document so verified shall be deemed to be duly verified, and any document so attested shall be deemed to have been as fully attested as if he had been a Magistrate.
(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 a 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.
22-B. Duties of Justices of the Peace.--Subject to such rules as may be made by the Provincial Government, every Justice of the Peace for any local area shall---
(a) on receipt of information of the occurrence of any incident involving a breach of the peace, or of the commission of any offence within such local area, forthwith make inquiries into the matter and report in writing the result of his inquiries to the nearest Magistrate and to officer-in-charge of the nearest police station.
(b) if the offence referred to in clause (a) is a cognizable offence, also with the place of occurrence of the offence.
(c) when so required in writing by a police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV in respect of any offence committed within such local area.--
(i) render all assistance to the police officer in making such an investigation.
(ii) record any statement made under expectation of death by a person in respect of whom a crime is believed to have been committed."
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding order of the Justice of the Peace being an administrative order and as such not amendable to writ jurisdiction is, misconceived as an order without jurisdiction and void ab initio can be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The order to the extent of a direction to the S.H.O. To restore possession of the shop to the appellant was beyond the ambit of the powers conferred on the Justice of the Peace by virtue of sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and 4 others v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 632 and Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and others. v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Secretary in the department of Excise and Taxation, Peshawar, and others NLR 2000 Civil 578 is fully attracted to the instant case.
8. Since the learned Justice of Peace while passing the order had clearly acted beyond his jurisdiction and had in fact passed the order in violation of the statutory provisions of law as such the order of the learned Judge in Chamber striking it down to that extent is legal and calls for no interference.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the Intra-Court appeal being without merits is dismissed.