' CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.---Through this petition validity of impugned order dated 27.08.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan has been called in question whereby he accepted a revision petition filed by respondent No,5 and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate refusing further physical remand was set-aside.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not sustainable as the revision petition against order passed by the learned Magistrate was not maintainable; that the learned Illaqa Magistrate has granted physical remand three times, total for a period of 9-days but no progress was made by the I.O. Towards the recovery of the misappropriated amount; that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/respondent No,1 has committed illegality and order passed by him is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Learned counsel has placed reliance on cases titled "Nasreen Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and another" (2001 MLD 1459), "Abid Shah v. The State (PLD 1992 Lah. 412) and "Mazhar lqbal v.The State" (1989 PCr.LJ 2241).
3. The petition has been opposed on the ground that order passed by Judicial Magistrate whereby physical remand was refused was revisable by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who found the same not in accordance with law and rightly allowed the petition and that there was no valid ground to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction by this Court. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on cases titled "Riaz ul Haq and another v. Muhammad Naveed and another" (2005 YLR 805), "Iqbal Hussain v. The State and another" (1995 PCr.LJ 1835) and "Zawar Hussain v. The State and 3 others" (2009 PCr.LJ 705).
5. Heard. Perused.
6. Allegation against petitioner was that while serving as head cashier in Hussain Mills Ltd., he misappropriated huge amount of Rs,2,40,00,000/- (24 millions) which fraud was detected on checking the accounts being maintained by him during his service. He was arrested in the case registered against him on 06.08.2016 and produced before Illaqa Magistrate on the following day requesting his physical remand. Three days physical remand was allowed which was extended twice; the I.O. Applied for extension of physical remand on 16.08.2016 but the request was turned down by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on the ground that he failed to show sufficient progress during previous remand. The above order was challenged on the ground that it being a case of big fraud, the amount as well as documents were to be recovered and presence of the accused was essential for the exercise. In the cited judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents i,e, "Riaz ul Haq and another v. Muhammad Naveed and another" (2005 YLR 805) it was held that order passed by Magistrate refusing to grant physical remand was a judicial function and under Section 435, Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge was empowered to call for record to see the illegality of the order impugned before him. Same view was expressed in other cases cited by learned counsel for respondents. However, in the case titled "Nasreen Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and another"
(2001 MLD 1459), cited by learned counsel for petitioner, it was observed that revision against order passed by Magistrate was not maintainable as it was not a judicial order and it could be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The case law cited by learned counsel for respondents i,e, "Riaz ul Haq and another v. Muhammad Naveed and another" (2005 YLR 805), is more pertinent to the question involved in this case, being identical on the facts. Two questions came under consideration in the case cited by learned counsel for respondents; firstly, whether order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate refusing remand, was a judicial order and secondly complainant had locus standi to file revision petition against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. Regarding first question, it was observed that not granting physical remand was a judicial function and that a complainant in a criminal case had locus standi to file the revision petition, being an aggrieved person. In the present case, as noted above, misappropriation of huge amount was involved which fact was noted in the impugned order passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge. In the above backdrop, I see no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, petition in hand is dismissed.