This application by Gul Rauf and Lal Hanan for quashment arises out of the following facts: Alaptagin who is arrayed as respondent was applicant before the Collector Kohat in the proceedings for restitution of mortgaged land against Gul Rauf etc. Petitioners. Certain documents Exhs. D. A., D. B. And D. C. Relied upon by the petitioners, who were then respondents for the purpose of improvements were disbelieved by the Court concerned as forged ones. The final order in the chain of Revenue Courts was against the petitioners of this application.
2. An application was made by Habibur Rahman brother of the respondent of this petition under section 417, 420, 468 etc. Before the District Magistrate Kohat, who forwarded it to E. A. C. Karak for disposal who discharged the petitioners (then accused) under section 253, Cr. P. C. For the reason that a complaint envisaged under section 195 (1)(c) could be made only in the Court where during the proceedings the alleged offence had been committed.
3. Ultimately Alaptagin then moved the Collector Kohat who forwarded the complaint to Addl.
Deputy Commissioner (G), Kohat for disposal, who after recording evidence prepared a complaint under sections 193,196,468 and 471, P. P. C. And sent it to the District Magistrate Kohat so as to be entrusted to some competent Court for disposal. The petitioners in this petition went in appeal against this order to the Court of Sessions Judge Kohat who accepted the appeal. The order of 1June, 1973, recorded by Sessions Judge vas then questioned in revision by Alaptagin in the High Court where the order of Sessions Judge was vacated and remitted the record for further proceedings to the Court concerned. There was yet another appeal by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar against the order dated 25-9-72 made by Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Kohat which was dismissed as time barred.st
4. At present the petitioners are being prosecuted in the Court of A. C. Karak, which fact is armed by Para II of this petition which reads :--- "(11) The petitioners have now been prosecuted in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Karak on the complaint filed by Assistant Commissioner Kohat."
5. Before proceeding further, the following paragraph from the detailed order by the Assistant Commissioner, Kohat will give a clear picture, of the case and leaves no room for doubt with regard to the contention raised by Muhammad loam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners:- "(6) As far as the question of jurisdiction of the Court is concerned the Court which originally decided the case, i.e. The Court of Revenue E. A. C. Since ceased to exist and whenever any Court which in the normal course of things, ceases to exist, the law must provide for an alternate forum which should be competent enough to entertain and dispose of cases which otherwise would have been entertained and disposed of by the Court no more in existence. On this analogy, therefore, I hold that the present Court has jurisdic--tion to make enquiry and dispose of this case on merits according to law."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the case Sher Muhammad v. Emperor (1). The cited case does not support the point under consideration. The observations in this regard were:- "Counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction on the ground that within the meaning of section 195 (1)(a). Criminal P. C. The complaint should have been filed by Mr. Scroggie himself or by some officer to whom Mr. Scroggie was subordinate and not by an officer who was himself subordinate to Mr. Scroggie. I do not propose to spend much time on this objection though it appears to me to be accepted on the merits on other grounds."
That was a complaint under subsection (1)(a) which speaks of a public servant and Mr. Scroggie was Assistant Inspector-General of Government, Railway Police. Public Servant, used in subsection (1)(a) ought not be equated with Court used in subsection (1)(b) which continues to be Court notwithstanding the change of presiding officers and consequently a successor-in-office is equally competent to make a complaint in respect of the offence committed before his predecessor.
7. For these reasons I find no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed. The case against the petitioner shall proceed.
S. A. H.