The applicant, Khuda Bux, has filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of proceedings under sections 403, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149, P. P. C. In the Court of Civil Judge & F. C.
M., Tando Bago.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that there is no evidence against the applicant and allegations in the F. I. R. Are that co-accused are employees of the applicant.
3. Before going into the merits of the case it has pointed out by Mr. A. A. Mohammadally, the learned A. A.-G. That applicant before coming to the High Court has not moved the trial Court as contemplated under section 249-A, Cr. P. C., therefore, this application is not maintainable. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, has contended that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very wide and such jurisdiction may be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise brought to the notice of the Court irrespective of law and by whom such facts are brought to the notice. He has relied upon the case of Syed Manzoor Hussain v. Shah v. Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi and another .
4. The admitted position is that this application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Has been filed before the learned Magistrate was moved under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. For acquitting the petitioner on the ground that there was no probability of his being convicted. This provision of section 249-A has recently added to the Criminal Procedure Code by Ordinance XXXVI of 1977, which are as under :- "249-A. Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage.-Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case of, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence."1 In the case of Sanaullah Burney and others v. The State and others. it was held as under : "Since the applicants have also an alternate remedy available to them under section 249-A, Cr. P.
C. Resort to section 561-A of Cr. P. C. cannot be made. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Is not an alternate jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction, but is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances, for which no other procedure is available."
In the case of Khushi Muhammad and 4 others v. The State , it was held as under :- "However, under the law, as it now stands the trial Magistrate can acquit the petitioners under section 249-A, P. P. C. At any stage of the proceedings and in these circumstances the most appropriate remedy for the petitioners appears to be to request the trial Magistrate should.
Thereupon, apply his mind to this aspect before proceeding any further with the proceedings, decide whether the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted in terms of section 249-A, Cr. P. C."
I have also referred to the cases of Abdul Rahim Zubairi and another v. Nizamuddin and 5 others and Aslam Noor Khan v. The State and 2 others .
5. In view of the above position of the law, since the applicant has an alternate remedy available to him under section 249-A, Cr. P. C., the A present application is premature and dismissed. 1983 SCMR 775 1980 P Cr. L J 981 1979 SCM R 94 1983 P Cr. L J 467 1983 P Cr. L J 1685