' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J. --- The captioned petition for leave to appeal is filed against the order of the High Court dated 22.04.2014, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners, herein, being incompetently filed, has been dismissed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that Naib Subidar Akhtar Hussain, respondent, herein, filed an application under Section 133, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate 1st Class, Trarkhal on behalf of the residents of village Kanjari, Tehsil Baloch, for removal of the obstacles created in the road, by the petitioners herein. It was stated that a link road has been constructed for the use of locals from Baloch Bazar to Lower Kanjari Boys High School which has been obstructed by the petitioners, herein, by taking law into their own hands. The people have been deprived of from utilizing the same. The application was contested by the other side The parties were provided an opportunity to lead evidence. The learned Magistrate 1st Class also visited the spot and at the conclusion of the proceedings vide order dated 31.12.2010 granted the prayed relief, directing the respondents, petitioners herein, to remove the construction raised in the road within a period of five days. The order dated 31.12.2010 was challenged by the present petitioners though revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge who dismissed the same. The petitioners filed an appeal in the High Court, which has been dismissed being filed incompetently, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at some length. After narration of necessary facts, he submitted that the learned High Court treated the appeal as revision. He further submitted that all the Courts below have not properly appreciated the facts and law on the subject. He forcefully submitted that the points agitated in this petition for leave to appeal are of vital legal importance, hence grant of leave is justified. When he was confronted that under what provision of law, against the revisional order the Sessions Judge, relating to the proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C., the right of appeal is available, he could not succeed to refer any statutory provision.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record made available.
According to the admitted facts of the case, the respondents moved an application before the Magistrate 1st Class for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Section 133, Cr.P C. The Magistrate after completion of required proceedings passed an order on the said application.
Against the order of the Magistrate the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge. The revision petition was dismissed. The petitioners challenged the order passed in revision petition by the Sessions Judge through an appeal before the High Court. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court through the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal.
5. According to the statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as applicable in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Chapter XXXI deals with the appeals. Under the provisions of Section 404, Cr.P.C. no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as it provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Thus, it is clear that according to the nature of the proceedings and order of the Sessions Judge, the same is not appealable. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has already passed order while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of Cr.P.C. According to the provisions of Clause b of sub-section (4) of Section 439, Cr.P.C. the High Court cannot entertain any proceedings in revision petition in respect of which the order has been passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Thus, it is obviously clear that before the High Court according to the nature of the case, neither the remedy of appeal nor revision in such circumstances is available. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court has rightly observed that no illegality has been found in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not succeed to point out any statutory provision for providing remedy of the appeal against such-like orders. He has also failed to point out any material illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge in revision petition. In view of this state of affairs, no legal point is involved in this petition for leave to appeal, thus having no force, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.