This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 13.01.2011, whereby the learned Maga Magistrate disagreed with cancellation report submitted by the police, summoned the accused and directed the SHO to submit calendar of witnesses.
2. Heard.
3. It is by now a settled proposition of law that while dealing with cancellation report, the learned Ilaqa Magistrate acts in his administrative capacity. When he concurs with the cancellation report submitted by the police, he would still by acting under his administrative status, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Bahadur and another us. The State and another'
(PLD 1985 SC 62). This Court in a detailed judgment dated 06.06.2013 passed in Writ Petition No, 6576/2013 Ehsan Ullah us. Raga Magistrate, etc.', has held that while dealing with cancellation report, if the learned Maga Magistrate disagrees with the cancellation report and in the same order summons the accused persons to face trial, then his first step of disagreeing with the cancellation report (administrative in nature) would merge in his simultaneous order regarding summoning of the accused passed under Section 204, Cr.P.C. which is squarely a judicial order. In this respect I am forfeited by the judgment `Manzoor Ahmad vs. Ahmad Yar, etc.' (1996 M LD 1867) and Haji Jamil Hussain vs. Map Magistrate Section 30, Multan etc.' (2012 PCr.LJ 159). Consequently, due to the merger of disagreeing order of the Magistrate into the ultimate and simultaneous order of summoning of the accused, the entire exercise by the Magistrate would become judicial action and undoubtedly such kind of order can be assailed through criminal revision. The instant writ petition, therefore, being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed.