' In this Criminal Revision Petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. Read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Saleh Muhammad son of Dost Muhammad caste Marehl resident of Musazai, Police Station Ghaudhwan, District D.I. Khan has challenged the order dated 28-9-1983 of Malik Muhammad Parvez Khan, Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan whereby the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner was enhanced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs,500 or in &fault to undergo 10 days' imprisonment.
2. Facts leading to the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner briefly are that on 29-1- 1983 he lodged a report in Police Station Chaudhwan regarding theft from his house worth Rs,18,000 and charged Ghulam Nabi and Abdur Rehman alongwith one Bashira. The local police started investigation in the case but in the meantime the complainant petitioner in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Retracted from his report and categorically asserted that the amount in question had been removed from the box by his sister but in order to fabricate a case against the accused (respondents herein) he broke open the box in question with a view to mislead the Investigating Agency that the box had been broken in order to remove the money. Since the complainant-petitioner had given false information with intent to cause the Investigating Agency use its lawful power to the injury of the respondents, the concerned S.I. Made a complaint against the complainant-petitioner in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate for proceedings against him under section 182, P.P.C. The complainant-petitioner when examined in Court pleaded guilty and the learned trial Court per his order, dated 29-5-1983 convicted him under section 182, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs,20 or in default to undergo five days' simple imprisonment. This order, however, did not satisfy the respondents herein who approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge for the enhancement of the sentence and the learned Sessions Judge per his order referred to above enhanced the sentence as aforesaid.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also of the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard and record of the case examined.
4. In the very outset it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that once revisional powers were exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, entertainment of any further proceedings by this Court in revision with regard to the said order are barred in view of clause (b) of subsection
(4) of section 439, Cr.P.C. Because there is no provision for second revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that this Court had ample powers to set aside the revisional order of the Sessions Judge in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. There can of course be no dispute on this analogy but inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By this Court is not to be exercised in the manner to induct a rule of precedence as if a second revisional jurisdiction is being invoked. Where once a revisional jurisdiction is exercised by a competent forum, unless it is clear on its very face that the exericse was either totally illegaly or extravagently fanciful or the order thus passed was irrational invoking jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Would be an effort futile.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however urged that the entire proceedings in the matter were illegal because the complaint in the instant case was not moved by the public servant concerned as provided in section 195, Cr.P.C. Elaborating his arguments he contended that the F.I.R. Which was subsequently retracted was recorded by the A.S.I. But the complaint under section 182, P.P.C. Was drafted by S.H.O. Ghaudhwan. He stated that the A.S.I. Was not subordinate to the S.H.O. And therefore in his view the provisions of section 195 (1)(a), Cr.P.C. Have not been stricto senso complied. According to the learned counsel the complaint must have been moved either by the A.S.I. Concerned or his appointing authority. Section 195(1)(a) reads:- "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate."
The bare reading of this section would indicate that the complaint is either to be made by the public servant concerned or any other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Nowhere it is provided that in case the complaint is not made by the concerned public servant in that case it should be made by his appointing authority. It is well-established that it is not only the appointing authority to which a public servant is subordinate but there are other ranks as well to whom a public servant is deemed to be subordinate irrespective of the fact whether that public servant is or is not his appointing authority. The Station House Officer is definitely incharge of a Police Station and entire staff including the are subordinate to the S.H.O. If the intention of the Legislature was that in case the concerned public servant is not the maker of the complaint the appointing authority should then move such a complaint the language of the section ibid must have been very clear. On the other hand it is clear and in unambiguous manner prescribes that the complaint should either be by the public servant concerned or by a person to whom he is subordinate. My this view is further supported by the contents of subsection (3) of section 195, Cr.P.C. Which has defined the subordination of various functionaries to the other forums. It reads:- "For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court is stituate ' Now obviously the appellate Court is not in all cases the appointing authority of the subordinate functionary. On this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was not made by the competent person/authority finds no force.
6. It is a matter of common practice that in theft cases even the suspects who are not even charged are interrogated by the police by using all possible methods. Besides the reputation of the person charged is damaged to an alarming degree and once a person is charged for such an offence irrespective of his final fate he is introduced in the society as a thief and is considered to be escutcheon on the society. In these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was quite right in enhancing the sentence awarded to the petitioner.
7. On the above view of the matter I see no substance in this petition which is dismissed. The accused-petitioner who is present in Court being on bail has been taken into custody and remanded to jail to undergo the period of his sentence.