' The petitioner in this revision has called into question the order of acquittal, dated 27-4-1982 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, on the grounds inter alia that the consolidation of 23 cases in one trial is contrary to the provisions of Section 233, Cr.P.C. and that the impugned judgment is no judgment in the eye of law as the learned Magistrate has neither discussed the entire prosecution evidence nor was conscious of the points which required determination nor has given any cogent reason for the points decided against the complainant.
After preliminary hearing the record was called for. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked the reason for not approaching the Court of Sessions under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. and instead approaching this Court directly under section 439, Cr.P.C. The answer given by the learned counsel was that the choice lies with the petitioner to approach either of the Courts, though been conferred revisional jurisdiction and that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is more effective as in case the petitioner remains unsuccessful here, it can agitate the matter before the Supreme Court but no remedy will be available in case the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed by the Court of Sessions. No doubt, the remedy in the shape of a petition for special leave to appeal is not available against the order passed in revision by a Court of Sessions under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., but the effect of inclusion of section 939-A, Cr.P.C. in the Code of Criminal Procedure in the words of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 is as under:-- "After the enforcement of revisional power on the Sessions Judge, all revisions against judgments of acquittal recorded by Magistrates lie before them, i.e,, before Sessions Judges, while revisions against judgments of acquittal by any other, inferior criminal Court would still lie before the High Court. The reason for introducing this amendment and curtailing the jurisdiction of the High Courts was obviously that each High Court had become clogged with revision petitions against orders of hundreds of Magistrates throughout the respective province and speedy disposal thereof was not possible."
2. I have today disposed of a criminal revision of the year 1978 against an order summoning the accused in a complaint case. This revision petition if admitted is not likely to be disposed of for about two year due to the heavy load of pending cases. Even otherwise, where two Courts have concurrent jurisdiction then the lower Court should ordinarily be approached as that would be more consistent with the scheme of law under which same power has been vested in the lower Court as well. For all these reasons I am not inclined to permit the invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the Court of Sessions under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Order accordingly.