RAJA SHAKEEL AHM AD, J. The applicants have filed the instant Cr. Misc Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C for setting aside/quashment of proceeding and impugned judgment dated 31/05/2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 08/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit maintained the findings of trial Court dated 09/02/2024, with modification in sentence by reducing it from 20 days to 3 days. The petitioners sought acquittal with following prayer:- "It is therefore humbly prayed that by accepting this criminal petition and acquit the petitioners from the charge levelled against them in the larger interest of justice, law and equity."
2. The short track of the case is that Sub-Divisional Magistrate Juglote had imposed ban on encroachments/constructions on State land (Khalisa-e-Sarkar land) under section 144, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 19/01/2024 bearing No. ACJ-1(70)/17029/2024. The SHO Police Station Pari Bangla caught the petitioners/convicts red handed on the spot while making constructions on State land and submitted complaint before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class Juglote. On requisition, the petitioners failed to produce any mutation or allotment orders in their favour, as such, after summary proceedings, the Executive Magistrate convicted the petitioners for sentence of 20 days for violation of order imposed under section 144, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09/02/2024. The petitioners challenged the said order in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, who reduced the sentence from twenty to three days and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 31/05/2024, while maintaining the findings of the leaned trial Court, hence this petition for setting aside the order dated 31/05/2024 and acquittal of petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioners/accused are innocent and are serving as govt. employees in BPS-1. The Executive Magistrate 1st Class Tehsil Juglote has convicted the petitioners without any cogent reason and justification. The petitioners have been convicted on the basis of surmises, conjectures and presumptions instead of evidence. Feeling aggrieved from the same, the petitioners approached to the Sessions Court Gilgit for setting aside the same. The learned Judge of Sessions Court Gilgit instead of setting aside the sentence awarded to the petitioners dismissed the petition by reducing the sentence from twenty to three days, which may resulted from the dismissal from the service of petitioners/convicts. The impugned judgment/order of learned Sessions Judge Gilgit is against the basic principles of justice, equity and law. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order dated 30/05/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit and sought acquittal of the petitioners/convicts.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioners/convicts have violated the section 144, Cr.P.C., as such the Executive Magistrate 1st Class Tehsil Juglote has rightly convicted the petitioners/convicts and the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit by taking lenient view reduced the sentence from twenty to three days and rightly dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners/convicts are not entitled for any concession of imposition of law on, violating the orders of the competent authority despite being Government servants. The judgments of both the lower court are correct and passed according to law and facts of the case, and there is also no issue of jurisdiction of Courts. The learned AAG submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners/convicts is baseless and merits dismissal, may be dismissed.
5. The instant petition the petitioners have not annexed the record of proceedings before the trial Court as well as proceedings of trial before the Court of Session Judge Gilgit case just to conceal the facts. The learned Executive Magistrate was directed to appear with record of the case who submitted the record of proceedings in summary trial before him. After perusal of record this Court found no any illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Executive Magistrate, or in the judgment/ order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit. Under section 260 of Cr.P.C any Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the Provincial Government, may, if he think fit, try in a summary way all or any of the following offences:
(a) Offences not punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months;
(b) Offences relating to weights and measures under Sections 264, 265 and 266 of the Pakistan Penal Code;
(c) Hurt, under clause (i) of section 337-A of the same Code;
(d) Theft under Sections 379, 380 or 381 of the same Code, where the value of the property stolen does not exceed ten thousand rupees;
(e) Dishonest misappropriation of property under Section 403 of the same Code, where the value of the property misappropriated does not exceed so ten thousand rupees;
(f) Receiving or retaining stolen property under Section 411 of the same Code, where the value of such property does not exceed ten thousand rupees;
(g) Assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under Section 414 of the same Code, where the value of such property does not exceed ten thousand rupees;
(h) Mischief, under Section 247 of the same Code;
(i) house-trespass, under Section 448, and offences under Sections 451, 453, 454, 456 and 457 of the same Code;
(j) Insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under Section 504 and criminal intimidation, under Section 506 of the same Code;
(j) offence of personating at an election under Section 171-F of the same Code;
(k) Abetment of any of the foregoing offences;
(1) An attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;
(m) Offences under Section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871.
Perusal of the judgment/findings passed by the learned Trial Court/Executive Magistrate it reveals the learned Executive Magistrate 1st Class during trial of case have followed the procedure provided for the summary trial of Cases under section 262, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the proceedings carried out by the Leaned Executive Magistrate they failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings.
6. Although under section 561-A of Cr.P.C the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to "any order under the code of Criminal Procedure or, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but subject to certain exceptions i.e. when prima facie no case is made out, or when there is want of jurisdiction or when there is sheer abuse of process of law, but in the instant case the leaned counsel for the petitioners failed to show and one of the above exceptions.
7. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that there is no force in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The record of the lower Court is remitted along with the attested Copy of this judgment. File.