' The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 28-3-1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. In Criminal Revisional Application No,96 of 1994 setting aside the order passed by Additional City Magistrate, Husri, dated 30-11-1994 whereby learned Magistrate had declared co-accused Muhammad Younus as proclaimed offender within the meaning of section 87, Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents in relation to commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 504 and 506, P.P.C. Sometimes in 1987. It is stated at the bar that after holding an enquiry into the complaint process was issued against respondents Nos.1 to 3 as well as Muhammad Younus. While the respondents after service of the process of the Court surrendered before the lower Court, co-accused Muhammad Younus could not be served with the process of the Court with the result that after recording statement of a process-server learned Magistrate decided to proceed against him under section 512, Cr.P.C. And declared him as proclaimed offender.
3. Being aggrieved by this order, petitioner challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who in the exercise of his jurisdiction under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Set aside the order passed by the Magistrate on a number of valid grounds. In view of old age of the case, learned Sessions Judge by the same order directed the Magistrate to bifurcate the case of the respondents from the case of Muhammad Younus and to decide the case according to law within a period of three months. It is as against this order that the present application under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Was filed before this Court with a prayer that this Court after examination of the R and Ps of both the Courts, correctness, legality and propriety of the order may set aside the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
4. At the very outset it is pertinent to note that this petition was drafted as a Criminal Revision Application under sections 439, 435 and 436, Cr.P.C. But subsequently these sections were scored off by pen and section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was written at the title of the application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General.
6. On an examination of the record, I find that learned Sessions Judge by interfering with the impugned order neither acted illegally nor without lawful authority. He has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the view of the learned Magistrate for declaring co-accused Muhammad Younus as a proclaimed offender. These reasons need not be reiterated here and it will suffice to say that impugned order is well-considered and well-reasoned. No illegality or material irregularity is shown to have been committed by the revisional Court, for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
7. Remedy under section 439, Cr.P.C. Being available to the petitioner and the same having been availed of by him fully second revision application would not be competent before this Court as the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and High Court under this provision of law is concurrent and it has been held by the superior Courts that ordinarily a party should invoke the jurisdiction of the lower forum in the event of a concurrent jurisdiction vested in two different Courts. Section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 with a view to relieve the High Court of additional burden of hearing revision applications from the orders passed by a large number of Magistrates and filing of petitions in writ jurisdiction against judgments and final orders passed under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner having availed of the remedy provided under law cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Which is exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not available to a party by way of additional or alternative jurisdiction after exhausting revisional jurisdiction. I am fortified in this view by the case reported as Attaullah Khan v. Muhammad Akram and 5 others 1985 Pcr.LJ 2409 and Zafar Hussain v. Muhammad Amin and others 1990 PCr.LJ 1928. No case-law to the contrary has been cited at the bar and there is no strong reason to deviate from the view taken earlier in the matter.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. Jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised in relation to proceedings pending before a subordinate Court and not in cases where proceedings have come to an end. Learned Sessions Judge has finally disposed of the revision application therefore, inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised at this stage as it would be neither just nor proper.
9. For these reasons I am of the considered view that this application is highly misconceived and not maintainable at law. It is accordingly dismissed. #EndJudgment