K. E. CHAUHAN, J.--In a case registered vide F. I. R., No, 133 dated 31-8-1968 in a Police Station in Sargodha District under. sections 302/34, P. P. C., and referred to a Tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act VII of 1963,. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the President of the Tribunal granted bail to Mumtaz Ahmad petitioner under subsection (11) of section 28-D or the Act on 20-2-1970. Against that order, the complainant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha, :Division who rejected it on 14-4-1970. The complainant then filed a revision before the Provincial Government which was accepted by the Home Secretary Government of Punjab on 1-9- 1970,. ;whereby he cancelled the petitioner's bail. The petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 98 of the late Constitution contending that the Provincial Government/Home Secretary had no jurisdiction to hear the revision or cancel the bail and, there-'fore, his order is without lawful authority and be so declared. We have examined this point in detail and are of the opinion, as will be presently shown, that it has no merit.
2. Against an order passed under subsection (11) of section 28-D of the Act, a revision petition is maintainable under subsection (12) of the said section. Though in the instant case, the complainant filed an appeal, the description of the nature of the proceedings is immaterial as was conceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the case can be examined from the same point of view that against the order-of the President of the Tribunal the complainant took up the matter before the Commissioner. Regarding the extent of the Commissioner's jurisdiction when he is moved in this way, it is written in section 28-D (12) that, "any order passed by the President of a Tribunal under subsection (11) may be revised by the Commissioner in the same manner and to the same extent as an order of the District Magistrate under subsection (1) of section 19. It is noteworthy to reproduce section 19 of the Act at this place. It reads as follows :- "19(1). The Commissioner or Government shall not modify, alter or set aside any sentence, decision or order under section 18 without giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.
(2)Government and the Commissioner may, in exercise of their respective appellate jurisdiction, exercise all or any of the powers conferred on an appellate Court by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and may also in any case enhance any sentence.
(3)Where, in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction the Commissioner varies or sets aside any decision, sentence or order, he shall record his reason for so doing."
This will show that while hearing the revision petition under section 28-D (12), the Commissioner shall have the same powers which he has while hearing an appeal under section 19(1) and which powers are elaborated under subsection (2) of the said section, wherein it is written Oat in exercise of these powers, the Commissioner may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on an Appellate Court by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898. In section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the powers of the Appellate Court are as follows :-- "423. (1) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already in Court. After perusing such record, and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 411-A, subsection (2) or section 417, the accused, if he appears the Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal or may-- (a)in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be retried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; (b)in an appeal from a conviction, (1) reverse the finding and sentence, and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (2) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or, with or without altering the finding, reduce the sentence, or (3), with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding, alter the nature of the sentence, but, subject to the Provisions of section 106, subsection (3), not so as to enhance the same; (c)in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order; (d)make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper."
(2) Nothing herein contained shall authorise the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him."
This will mean that when a matter is taken up in revision by the Commissioner, he has a power so far as relevant for the purpose of the present case to set aside; alter or confirm the impugned order. The Commissioner in the present case did not interfere with the order which had been challenged before him. Since the order of the Commissioner was not appealable, a stage then reached for filing a revision before the Government under section 20 of the Act, where it is written that the "Government may at any time call for the record of any case which had been decided by the Commissioner in which no appeal lies to it and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such order in the case as it deems fit." It will thus appear that the revision before the Government, against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, was well maintainable and no defect can be found with the order of the Government/Home Secretary in that behalf.
3. When confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence took place in year 1968 but the trial of the case has not yet been finalised. He prays that we should issue some direction for expeditious disposal of the case. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Provincial Government which we hope, will take necessary steps for expediting the disposal of the case in accordance with law.
4. No other point was argued before us.
5. The upshot is that the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs.