MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.---Petitioner is aggrieved of judgment dated 17th March, 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dera Murad Jamali, whereby; two sons of petitioner were found guilty and sentenced and also aggrieved of the judgment dated 27th March, 2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Dera Murad Jamali, whereby appeal filed by convicts was dismissed, besides the grievance of petitioner for non-entertaining of complaint under sections 193 and 211, P.P.C. By Judicial Magistrate, Dera Murad Jamali.
2. Succinctly facts as advanced by petitioner are that F.I.R. No.89 of 2009 lodged with Police Station, Dera Murad Jamali culminated in filing of challan before the Judicial Magistrate, Dera Murad Jamali against Muhammad Adam and Muhammad Musa sons of petitioner. Case was proceeded with by the Judicial Magistrate and proceedings so conducted resulted in conviction of Adam and Musa vide judgment dated 17th March, 2010. The convicts challenged their conviction before learned Sessions Judge, Dera Murad Jamali, which was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge by dismissing the appeal on 27th March, 2010. According to petitioner, Zubair Ahmed P.W.4 while making statement before Judicial Magistrate Dera Murad Jamali made substantial improvement in his statement, which gave rise to an occasion to petitioner for filing a complaint under sections 193 and 211, P.P.C. The complaint was not entertained by the Judicial Magistrate, Dera Murad Jamali.
3. The petitioner appeared in person, reiterated the contents of his petition and, submitted that the statement recorded before the trial Court by P.W.4 was false, contradictory and material improvements were made, but the trial Court as well as appellate Court did not take into consideration the nature of the statement and illegally convicted the sons of petitioner. It was strenuously urged by the petitioner that the improvements made were material and apparently a false statement was made. The complaint filed by the petitioner for initiating proceedings under sections 182, 193 and 211, P.P.C. Was illegally not entertained, whereas by detention of sons of petitioner for four months, a loss of Rs.60,000 was caused to petitioner, which was because of false statements made by Zubair Ahmed and Abdul Ghafoor. He prayed for setting aside of both the' judgments and requested for direction to subordinate Court to entertain complaint.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Rahim Mengal, learned Assistant Advocate-General raised objection upon maintainability of petition and submitted that none of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner constitutes the subject-matter of a Constitutional Petition. It was next contended that petitioner has got no locus standi to file this petition before this Court.
5. We have heard petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate-General and perused the record. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that petitioner is not a party in the proceedings carried out in consequence of F.I.R. No. 89 of 2009. The perusal of petition reflects that the relief so prayed for by the petitioner definitely does not fall within the seisin of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. To maintain a Constitutional Petition within the ambit of Article 199 of Constitution, two prerequisites must be satisfied. No.1 petitioner must be an aggrieved person and secondly no alternative and efficacious remedy should be available to petitioner. In our considered opinion, both the prerequisites as mentioned hereinabove are missing. So far as the conviction recorded by trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court is concerned, suffice it to observe that the judgments passed by the lower forums were assailable by the convicts themselves through the provisions of Cr.P.C. And not by petitioner through this Constitutional Petition, secondly the alternative remedy by way of filing revision petition was available to the convicts/appellants themselves, hence this petition to such extent is not maintainable, as in any case petitioner cannot be treated an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. As far as the grievance for non-entertaining the complaint dated 31st March, 2010 under sections 193 and 211, P.P.C. Is concerned, suffice it to observe that there is a bar provided by section 195, Cr.P.C. In entertaining the same. For ready reference, section 195, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:-- "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants: Prosecution for certain offence against public justice: Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence: (1)
No Court shall take cognizance--
(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except, on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or"
So in view of the bar contained vide subsection (b) of section 195, the Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge committed no illegality in non-entertaining the said complaint, if at all filed.
In the light of above discussion, petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable, as such is dismissed in limine.