MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Briefly the facts are that respondent No,3 (Javed Iqbal) filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace seeking a direction for registration of case against the, petitioner and others. The learned Justice of Peace summoned the parties and also called for report/comments from the concerned SHO and ultimately on 18-8-2008 passed the following impugned order:-- "Present: Javaid Iqbal, petitioner in person along with his counsel ' Muhammad Nawaz respondent is also present in person along with his counsel and undertakes to pay Rs,72,000 to the petitioner within one month after his satisfaction on special oath of the petitioner on Holy Quran. This petition as requested is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after its necessary compilation within prescribed period."
2. The present petitioner/respondent before the learned Justice of. Peace filed this constitutional petition against the above order dated 18-8-2008 on legal premises that learned Justice of Peace had no jurisdiction to decide the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. On Special Oath and that no such Oath was even taken by the learned Justice of Peace. In this behalf reliance has been placed on the case PLD 2007 SC 539.
3. The learned counsel for private respondent argued that the learned Justice of Peace passed the order after taking oath impliedly with the consent of the parties; therefore, the petitioner is now stopped from challenging the said procedure through this writ petition.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case "KHIZAR HAYAT v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, Punjab, Lahore" (PLD 2005 Lahore 470), has already declared that Justice of Peace is not a Court within the meaning of section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Being an Ex-officio Justice of Peace he is not only required to exercise the powers during office hours but they are Justices of Peace for twenty four hours and may exercise their powers anywhere at any time within their territorial jurisdiction.
The powers conferred upon Justices of Peace are neither judicial nor supervisory, rather these are administrative in nature and such powers have to be used within the framework of section 22-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The duties of the Justice of Peace have been provided, whereas, under section 22-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, the powers to exercised by them have been settled. The functions and directions issued by the Justice of Peace cannot be equated with judicial orders/judgments nor even the proceedings before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace can be equated with the proceedings before a court of law. Under section 22-A(6) a Sessions Judge is, empowered to issue as Ex-officio Justice of Peace appropriate directions to the police authorities on a regarding non-registration of criminal case; transfer of investigation from one police officer to the other; to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed by police authority in relation to its functions and duties. But in the case in hand, the learned Justice of Peace erred in law and entered into a domain which was beyond his jurisdiction and decided the matter after taking Oath from the parties.
6. Section 9 of the Oaths Act, 1873 provides for special path to be offered to other party or witness by any party during judicial proceedings and this oath should be made in the light of section 8 of the above Act. Section 10 provides that if the offer of administering oath is accepted then the Court shall administer oath and section 11, ibid provides that evidence so given on oath shall as against the person who offers to be bound, shall be conclusive proof of the matter stated, but all these sections provide that oath must be ordered during judicial proceedings and its administration should be by the Court. The learned Sessions Judge or learned Additional Sessions Judges while acting as Justices of Peace do not function as Court, nor the proceedings before Ex-officio Justice of Peace are in the nature of judicial proceedings, hence, they have no power to proceed under the above mentioned provisions of the Oath Act, to decide any controversy between the parties and only the Courts where judicial proceedings are in progress and have the authority to record evidence, are authorized to administer oath in discharge of their legal duties or in the exercise of powers conferred or bestowed upon them. Justice of Peace being not a Court as defined in Cr.P.C.
And its status has been elucidated in the case "KHIZAR HAYAT v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, Punjab, Lahore" (PLD 2005 Lahore 470), has no authority or jurisdiction to offer such Oath on the asking of the parties. As such, from any agile the learned Justice of Peace had no authority to proceed and decide the matter on special Oath, as has been done in the instant case, therefore, the impugned order of learned Justice of Peace being derogative to law, is set aside and case is remanded to the same learned Justice of Peace, where application of the respondent shall be deemed to be pending, both the parties shall appear before the learned Justice of Peace on 15-3- 2011 or may be summoned and then an appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Justice of Peace afresh in the parameters of sections 22-A and 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Writ petition is dispose of accordingly.