' Respondent Shukar Ullah was acquitted by the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 26-2-1991.
Revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was filed on 29-6-1992 which was dismissed as being incompetent having been filed by an incompetent person.
2. The main question involved in this matter is as to whether the revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is amenable to interference in exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The controversy has been settled by the Peshawar High Court in the case of Saleh Muhammad v. Abdur Rehman etc. 1985 PCr.LJ 1055 wherein it was held:--- "In the very outset it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that once revisional powers were exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, entertainment of any further proceedings by this Court in revision with regard to the said order are barred in view of clause (b) of subsection
(4) of section 439, Cr.P.C. Because there is no provision for second revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that this Court had ample powers to set aside the revisional order of the Sessions Judge in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By this Court is not to be exercised in the manner to induct a rule of precedence as if a second revisional jurisdiction is being invoked. Where once a revisional jurisdiction is exercised by a competent forum, unless it is clear on its very face that the exercise was either totally illegal or extravagantly fanciful or the order thus passed was irrational invoking jurisdiction, of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Would be an effort futile."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was illegal or fanciful so as to justify interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the petitioner being a statutory body should have been vigilant in pursuing remedy. The order acquitting the accused was passed on 26-2-1991 by the learned trial Magistrate while revision was filed on 29-6-1992, after a period of more than one year. The petition, therefore, also suffers from lathes. There is no cavil with the proposition that section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Bestows inherent powers upon a High Court to check abuse of the process of a Court but before bringing into play the powers, fault is to be detected in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Since no fault could be pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to interfere with the impugned order.
For what has been discussed above, there is no force in this petition. It IC fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.