1. ' Applicant Muzaffar Iqbal, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has applied for quashment of proceedings culminating in order dated 19-9-1990, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, in exercise of suo motu revisional power under section 435, Cr.P.C., in respect of the case registered on the basis of F.I.R. No,79/90 under section 295, P.P.C. At Police Station Sinjhoro, District Sanghar.
2. ' The circumstances in which the said proceedings came to be instituted were briefly as follows:-- ' Complainant Moulana Hafeezur Rehman on 25-8-1990, when he and Ahmed Mian Hamadi had gone to Session Court Sanghar, were informed by P.Ws. Sajid and Muhammad Rasheed Jat that Holy Qur'an was desecrated in the Mosque, situate at 22 Bridge Deh 22 Jammroo, District Sanghar.
3. Umer Deen butcher had also informed them about the incident, which according to the F.I.R., had occurred on 20-8-1990 at 5 a.m. It is the case of the prosecution that, before the occurrence, Zafar Qadiani and an identified person were seen standing near said Mosque. On 28-8-1990 Incharge Magistrate of the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sanghar, had granted bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs,5,000 and P.R. Bonds in like amount. Learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, on 3-9-1990, issued notice to the applicant and by impugned order, dated 19-9-1990 set aside the order passed by learned Magistrate, Sanghar, and allowed the revision. While doing, so, he observed that section 295-B, P.P.C. Is attracted to the circumstances of the case, and learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the matter. The bail application of applicant was dismissed.
4. ' It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction is illegal, and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also argued that since F.I.R.
5. Was registered under section 295, P.P.C., and the maximum punishment for said offence was R.I. For two years, said Magistrate Sanghar had jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel also submitted that, on merits, the prosecution has got no case, as both the star witnesses of the prosecution namely, Muhammad Sajid Ghafoor, and Muhammad Rasheed, in their respective statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 18-9-1990, did not implicate the applicant in the commission of this offence.
6. ' Mr. Shaikh Azizur Rehman learned counsel for the State has not supported the impugned order and submitted that it was not proved from the record that the mischief was done by the applicant.
7. ' The contentions raised on behalf of the applicant have got no force. The F.I.R. Was registered under section 295, P.P.C. But the circumstances of the case show that section 295-B, P.P.C., should have been applied. F.I.R. Clearly mentioned that Holy Qur'an was burnt. Section 295-B, P.P.C., states that whoever wilfully defiles, damages, or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life. Once it is found that the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life First Class Magistrate would have no jurisdiction in the matter.
8. ' In the case reported in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 SC 317, while dealing with the point of inherent jurisdiction, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that inherent jurisdiction should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. Also, it was observed that inherent powers are preserved to meet a lacuna in the Criminal Procedure Code in extraordinary cases and are not intended for vesting the High Court with powers to make any order which they are pleased to consider to be in the interests of justice. Honourable Supreme Court also observed that inherent jurisdiction given by section 561- A is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction, but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. In the case reported in A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and 5 others PLD 1992 SC 353, Honourable Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Ghulam Muhammad case.
9. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is noted that impugned order of learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. Revisional jurisdiction was rightly exercised by the learned Sessions Judge. Section 295, P.P.C., was wrongly applied by the Investigating Agency. As regards merits, it is noted that P.Ws. Muhammad Sajid Ghafoor and Muhammad Rasheed have not yet been examined by the Trial Court. Simply because they have given different version in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. This does not, ipso facto, prove that on merits the prosecution has no case. Their evidence would be sifted by the Trial Court after they are examined.
10. The power under section 561-A cannot be invoked in respect of matters which are directly covered by any specific provision of Cr.P.C. While exercising inherent power, this Court cannot hold an inquiry as to whether the evidence available on record is reliable or not. This function is to be performed by the Trial Court. The question of reliability or otherwise of a witness cannot be agitated, when inherent jurisdiction of this Court is invoked, and ordinarily this Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceedings, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify for such action, which in this case do not exist.
11. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed.