1. ' This quashment proceeding has been directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari dated 17-2-1977 by which the revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner claims to be the purchaser of 300 bales of cotton marked Lot Nos. 18, 19 and 21 manufactured by Messrs Qiswar Brothers Cotton Ginners, Mailsi whereas the respondent claimed that they had already purchased the total number of cotton bales from Messrs Qiswa r Brothers and the bales of cotton were already pledged with Messrs Habib Bank Ltd., Mailsi out of which 300 bales were shifted to Aftab Cotton Ginning Factory, Masi. As the truck was not available to take away the same to Lyalipur a Chaukidar was kept to guard the cotton bales. Since the prices had risen Messrs Qiswar Brothers set up a false claim in respect of the 300 bales lying in the premises of Aftab Cotton Ginning Factory and as a result of this claim the petitioner who claimed to be subsequent purchaser from Messrs Qiswar Brothers brought a civil suit in the civil Court. In the meantime an F. I. R. No, 170/76 dated 6-7-1976 under section 380, P. P. C.
3. Was lodged on 6-7-1976 by the respondent (Zeenat Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur). After the registration of the case the Police immediately took into possession the property in dispute i,e, 300 cotton bales. The learned Assistant Commissioner/M. I. C., Mailsi gave the 300 cotton bales on superdari to respondent No, 2 Zeenat Textile Mills Ltd., Lyalipur on 8-7-1976. A revision petition was filed under section 439-A, Cr. P. C. And relying on PLD 1976 Lah. 641 the possession of the stolen property was given to the real owner and the revision petition was dismissed. Against this order a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Has been filed for quashment and suspension of the operation of the impugned order.
4. ' The main question for determination in this case is whether this application is competent because once a revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge under section 439- A, Cr. P. C. The same cannot be exercised under section 439(4)(b), Cr. P. C. Which reads as under :- - "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to entertain any proceedings in revision with respect to an order made by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr. P. C."
5. A plain reading of the section indicates that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari is final ha this respect and this cannot be revised under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The inherent power of the High Court no doubt is very wide and definable but it does not mean that it can be exercised to override either the express provision of law or to have the effect of reversing the finding arrived at by the Court below. A Under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The inherent power of the High Court is exercised for doing real and substantial justice and preventing abuse of the process of the Court but it cannot override the express provisions of the Code. Reliance can be placed on Shahkot Bus Service, Shahkot v. The State etc. (1).
6. ' The petitioner in the present case either wants a revision of the decision arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari or quashment of the proceeding on the ground that according to him there is no other provision in the Criminal Procedure Code although the present law has provided only one remedy of revision which has been availed by the petitioner. Section 439 and section 561-A, Cr.
7. P. C. Are fundamentally different. Section 561-A is limited to abuse of the process of the Court and section 439 is indeed wide and in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the High Court, in appropriate cases, can disturb the finding of fact, and, in some cases, even the reversal of the judgment, whereas under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The jurisdiction of the High Court is of an extraordinary nature intended to be used only in extraordinary cases and its limited scope cannot B be utilised where there is either express remedy provided by the Code or where the remedy provided has been availed by the petitioner. It is only intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be regarded as being wide enough to confer on the High Court the same power as it has conferred under section 435 read with section 439, Cr. P. C. To examine the correctness or legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an unfairly Court.
8. Reliance can be placed on Muhammad Sarni Ullah Khan etc. v. The Stale (2).
9. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner his furnished a list of some books which have been examined by me. They are not relevant and may not be discussed.
10. ' I, therefore, hold that, in such circumstances the present petition (Cr. M. No, 108-Q of 1917) is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
11. (1)1969 SCMR 325
(2) PLD 1963 SC 237