' These two Criminal Revisions are directed against the order, dated 18th October, 1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Karachi West (Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey) whereby the three applicants were convicted under section 174, P.P.C. To suffer simple imprisonment for two days. It would be relevant to reproduce the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge as under:-- ' "Record of the case shows that on 29-5-1997 P.C. Faiz Ahmed an H.C. Altaf Qadir were bound down for appearance on next date of hearing as the case property was not produced by the Court. On next date of hearing i.e, 16-8-1997 P.C. Fiaz Ahmed and H.C. Altaf Qadir remained absent, therefore, non-bailable Warrants were issued against them, thereafter, they executed bonds for appearance in Court on 16-8-1997 but in spite of that they didn't appear, therefore, bonds were forfeited and letter to I.-G. Of Police for recovery of forfeited bond amount were issued on 26-8-1997 and again N.B.Ws. To both of them were issued on 26-8-1997 and 9-10-1997 respectively. In the same day S.I.
Muhammad Amir Gondal who appeared in Court on 16-8-1997 and was bound down for appearance on 13-9-1997 but failed to appear in Court without any satisfactory reason, therefore, N.B.W. Was also issued against him on 13-9-1997. This act of three Police Officials who were legally bound to attend the Court shows that they intentionally omit to attend Court in compliance of the order passed for their appearance, therefore, they are punished under section 174, P.P.C. With Simple Imprisonment for two days. They are present in Court and be taken in custody and sent to Central Jail, Karachi to serve the sentence."
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently urged that Sessions Case No,523 of 1996 was fixed for evidence on 16-8-1997 when applicant S.I. Muhammad Amir appeared in Court. The case did not proceed for want of case property as well as chemical examiners report. However, the witness was bound down for appearance for the next date of hearing i.e, 13-9-1997. On this date since the Court was lying vacant the matter was again adjourned and the witness was bound down for 23-9-1993. The learned defence counsel was called absent on 23-9-1997, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 6-10-1997 for arguments on bail application. On 8-10-1997 the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order in the case diary and the matter was adjourned to 18- 10-1997.
"Case called. Accused produced in custody D.A. Present. Police file with D.A. Call the copies under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Case property and chemical examiners report. Custody to 26,11-1996 for supply of copies. Accused is remanded to J.C."
4. According to the learned defence counsel applicants P.C. Faiz Muhammad appeared before the learned trial Court voluntarily as prosecution witness on 18-10-1997 for recording of his statement but was punished under section 174, P.P.C. Likewise applicants H.C. Abdul Qadir 'and the other two P.Ws. Were bound down on 29-7-1997 for 16-8-1997 but due to their failure to appear before the learned trial Court recoveries of surety bond amounting to Rs.500 were enforced through the D.I.-G.
Police Karachi and according to the case diary they failed to appear on 13-9-1997. Therefore, attempt was made to secure their attendance through N.B.Ws. For 18-10-997 but the warrants could not be executed and these two applicants voluntarily appeared before the Court on 18-10- 1997 when they were taken into custody and were ordered to be convicted as mentioned above.
They were, however, released on bail on their application under section 382-A, Cr.P.C. Both the learned defence counsel submitted that the impugned order was 'passed by the learned trial Court in contravention of section 195, Cr.P.C. And they were also condemned unheard. From perusal of the record also it is evidence that the diaries were written by the bench clerk but no directions were given to the applicants for their appearance on the adjourned dates of hearings which according to the learned defence counsel had created misunderstanding and confusion; otherwise that being members of the law enforcement agency could not think of disobeying the orders of the Court. Learned State counsel did not support the impugned order and submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court being without jurisdiction is illegal.
5. From a plain reading of the impugned order it appears that the learned Sessions Judge had apparently taken cognizance of the alleged offence under section 476, Cr.P.C. While the present revision applications have been moved under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Therefore, these revisions are not maintainable for the simple reason that subsection 4(b) section 476, Cr.P.C. Provides an appeal and in terms of section 439(5), Cr.P.C. If the appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. However, the applicants have also invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And the inherent powers can be exercised under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To correct errors of law in exceptional cases when revision to High Court is not competent. In Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,450 of 1997 Mustafa Kamal v. Farhan Aziz Khawaja and another (unreported), decided on 31-12-1997 it was held by me; "Such exceptional circumstances obtain where the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction or where the very preconditions attached thereto are not fulfilled before passing of that order or where the alternate remedy provided under the statute is very onerous, inefficient, not efficacious or is a farce or an exercise in futility In addition to this I also feel that under Article 203 of the Constitution that High Court is entrusted with the power to supervise and ' control all Courts subordinate to it (see M. Osman v. Tajammul Hussain PLD 1992 Karachi 173). In Haleem Shah v. The State PLD 1992 Karachi 306 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the High Court in the exercise of its C power of superintendence is competent to correct any order passed by subordinate Courts in violation of law."
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the an provisions contained in clause (1)(a) of section 195 and clause (1) of section 476, Cr.P.C. I am of the view that these revisions fall under the exceptional circumstances enumerated hereinabove as the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge, the impugned order and the proceedings under section 174, P.P.C. Are all completely without jurisdiction. If she had come to the conclusion that the applicants had committed the alleged offence she should have sent a complaint to a competent Court for disposal according to law. (see also Ghulam Murtaza v. The State 1991 MLD (Lahore) 1759). However, the learned Sessions Judge would be at liberty to take further action in light of what has been stated hereinabove. Subject to these observations, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court, the impugned order is set aside and the revisions stand disposed of accordingly.