Amir Yar Waran, petitioner though instant Criminal Revision has challenged the validity of order dated 01.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby, charge was framed against the petitioner/accused in case FIR No, 05/2011 dated 04.01.2011 offences under Sections 94, 97 & 82 Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with Sections 200, 471 & 199, PPC registered at Police Station Cantt Bahawalpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially instant case was being tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bahawalpur who vide order dated 26.03.2013 fixed the case on 06.04.2012 for the supply of copies to the petitioner/accused as required under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C.; that on 30.03.2013, learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bahawalpur, transmitted the instant case .to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, as it was exclusively triable by him; that on the same day i.e 30.03.2013 learned Sessions Judge summoned the petitioner to face the trial through bailable. warrants of arrest and case was adjourned for 01.04.2013; that on the date fixed for hearing, learned trial Court supplied the copies to the petitioner/accused as required under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. and thereafter immediately framed charge against the petitioner/accused on the same day (01.04.2013). While placing reliance on case laws reported as Hakam Deen Versus The State through Advocate-General and 15 others (2005 YLR 2032 Supreme Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir) and Nadeem Ahmad Khan and others Versus The State (2007 PCr.LJ 233 Karachi), it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that by framing charge on the same day (01.04.2013), learned trial Court has violated the mandatory provisions of law as charge could not be framed prior to seven days after supply of copies to the petitioner/accused under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C; that learned, trial Court by violating the mandatory provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is conducting trial in a hasty manner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner/accused. Thus, it is submitted that by accepting instant Criminal Revision, charge framed against the accused/petitioner on 01.04.2013 by learned Sessions Judge Bahawalpur is liable to be set aside and learned trial Court be directed to conduct trial strictly in accordance with law.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General on Court's call have opposed the instant Crl. Revision on the grounds that August Supreme Court of Pakistan issued direction to learned trial Court for decision of instant case till 04.04.2013, therefore, in compliance with aforementioned direction, learned trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioner immediately after supply of copies to the petitioner/accused. It has further been contended that period of seven days for framing of charge after supply of copies to the petitioner/accused is not mandatory rather, same is directory in nature and in the special circumstances of the case the Court can forgo the normal procedure. It has lastly been contended that instant Criminal Revision is not maintainable because if the petitioner/accused had any grievance he must had file an appeal under Section 94(2) of Representation of People and Act, 1976. Thus, it is submitted that instant Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with care.
5. It has been noticed that instant case was registered against the petitioner/accused on 04.01.2011 at Police Station Cantt Bahawalpur on the basis of the direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The challan u/S. 512 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the petitioner before the learned Maga Magistrate concerned on 12.01.2012 and the case was consigned to the record room by the Court of learned Magistrate Section 30, Bahawalpur vide order dated 17.02.2012 on account of absence of petitioner/accused. Supplementary report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. in the instant case was submitted before the Court of Learned Magistrate Section 30, Bahawalpur, on 18.01.2013 and thereafter the case was entrusted to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bahawalpur for the trial, therefore, delay in the submission of report under. Section 173, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was on account of conduct of accused/petitioner.
6. Perusal of impugned order dated 01.04.2013 reveals that learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, framed charge against the petitioner/accused immediately after supplying him copies as required under Section 265-C, Cr.P.0 in compliance with direction issued by the Hon'hle Supreme Court of Pakistan so as to decide the instant case till 04.04.2013. The learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, is constitutionally bound to comply with directions issued to him by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6-A. It has been observed by me that according to "Section 94(2) of Representation of the People Act, 1976" an appeal against order of Sessions Judge shall lie before a Division Bench of the High Court. Section 94(2). of Representation of the People Act, 1976 is reproduced as under:-- "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the offences of corrupt practice shall be tried by the Sessions Judge and an appeal against his order shall lie before a Division Bench of the High' Court."
As the petitioner/accused has filed the instant Criminal Revision against the impugned order dated 01.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, therefore, same is not maintainable before this Court in view of Section 94(2) of the. Act ibid.
7. For what has been discussed above, instant Criminal Revision stands dismisses in limine.