The respondents were sent by the police for offence under sections 148, 324/325/307/149, P. P. C. etc. The learned trial Magistrate dropped section 307, P. P. C. while framing charge against them.
Feeling aggrieved Qadir Bakhsh complainant has moved this revision petition.
2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents supported by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner should have gone to the learned Sessions Judge in the first instance, which is a Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed in this regard on Muhammad Esan v. The State (1) and Muhammad Farooq and another v. Rias Hasson Khan (2). On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no legal bar to moving a revision directly in the High Court which is competent to straightaway entertain the same. Reliance is placed in this regard on A. M. Rafiqul Islam v. Musa Kazem Mirdha and 13 others (3). [12]
(2) P L p 1960 Kar. 42
(4) 33 Cr. L J 558 revisions on matters concurrently falling also within the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court such a practice is not to be encouraged. In fact, the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, if exercised in the first instance, facilitates the decision of the cases routed through that Court particularly in regard to the appraisal of evidence, which in view of the huge accumulation of work in the High Court may better be left to the Sessions Court in the first instance. In the circumstances, the objection taken on behalf of the respondents should prevail Accordingly the petition is dismissed. .