This is a revision petition filed by Khadim Mohy-ud-Din, petitioner, against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad dated 30-4-1984 remanding the private complaint of the petitioner to a new Magistrate competent to try the case in order that he may decide whether the charge should be amended to section 467/471, P.P.C. Or to re-write the judgment, treating the case as one for the offences under section 468/471, P.P.C. For which the respondent was already charged. Earlier, a Magistrate of the First Class at Faisalabad, by his judgment dated 6-12-1983, had convicted the accused-respondent under sections 467 and 471, P.P.C. And sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under each section. Out of the fine of Rs. 4,000 if recovered, Rs. 3,000 was ordered to be paid to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Khadim Mohy-ud-Din, Advocate, the present petitioner, lodged a private complaint against Sultan Mahmood, respondent No.1, and two others, in respect of a forged receipt dated 27-12-1958 fabricated by them and used by Sultan Mahmood, respondent No.1, in his defence in the suit for eviction filed by the petitioner against the said respondent. The other two persons having absconded, the case against respondent No.1 was bifurcated. The said respondent was charged in respect of offences under section 468/471, P.P.C. However, by judgment dated 6-12-1983, the learned Magistrate of Faisalabad convicted and sentenced the said respondent under section 467/471, P.P.C. Instead of under section 468/471, P.P.C. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentences, whereas the petitioner also filed a revision for the enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondent. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dealt with by & learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad, who, by his judgment dated 30-4-1984, remanded the case to a new Magistrate with the direction that either he should amend the charge or write the judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a revision petition against the same, which is now before me for disposal.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused-respondent and the State end have also perused the record. In remanding the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge merely observed that he felt that the judgment had been minutely seen by the Magistrate, who had corrected the same many times, which showed that the reference to section 467, P.P.C. In the said judgment was not due to a typographical error. In coming to the conclusion that the reference to section 467, P.P.C. In the judgment was not a typographical error, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the other facts and circumstances also relevant for the determination of that question. For instance, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not note or discuss what was the legal effect of all the evidence which had been led in the case in respect of the offence under section 468/471, P.P.C. Or about the charge under section 468/471, P.P.C. Which had been framed against the accused-respondent, of the forged receipt which was used in the case against the petitioner to dislodge him and whether it had not been prepared for the purpose of cheating. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not note or, discuss any particular circumstance from which it could be unequivocally stated that the trial Magistrate had consciously decided to convict accused-respondent for a higher offence, as opposed to that for which he had been charged. The mere fact that some parts of the judgment happened to be corrected by the trial Magistrate could not ipso facto show that this alone amounted to a conscious conviction of the accused --respondent under section 467, P.P.C. Still further, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not note or discuss whether the provisions of sections 236, 237, 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable and assuming there was an omission to frame a charge, whether prejudice had occurred and whether he himself was not competent to hear arguments and pass judgment or try the case afresh. It appears that all these matters were not considered. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30-4-1984 is therefore, wanting in a proper application of the mind to the various matters which were relevant for discussion. The judgment is, therefore liable to be set aside.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is accepted and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad dated 30-4-1984 is set aside. Criminal Appeal No. 59-10 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 13-10 R of 1984 are remanded back again to the Sessions for re- hearing and proper disposal as required by law. Since Mr. Akhtar Mahmood Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, has already expressed his opinion in these cases, the same should be heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, himself, or he should mark them to some other Additional Sessions Judge, competent to deal with the same for disposal.