Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1978 P Cr. L J 624

HAYAT vs NUSRAT ALI Erc.

Citation1978 P Cr. L J 624
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No, 723 of 1976
Date1977-11-27
Judge(s)Gulbaz Khan
ResultRevision allowed

' Hayat filed this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr. P. C. Against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala, dated 30-12-1975, whereby his (petitioner's) case was transferred from the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad, to the Court of City Magistrate, Gujranwala.

2. The case was pending in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad. On 16-10-1975, Murid Hussain complainant filed application for the transfer of the case before the learned District Magistrate who called for the report of the Assistant Commissioner. After examining the report, the learned District Magistrate vide his order dated 30-12-1975, transferred the case from the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad, to the Court of City Magistrate, Gujranwala.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after item No, 173 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, came into force in the Province of Punjab w. e. f. 26-12-1977, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order for the transfer of the case. It was also urged that the impugned order had been passed behind the back of the petitioner.

4. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are forceful. Previously, the District Magistrate was competent to pass an order for the transfer of the case under section 528(2), Cr. P. C., but on account of the amendment, subsection (2) of section 528, Cr. P. C. Has been omitted meaning thereby that the District Magistrate is no longer competent to pass an order for the transfer of the case. By the aforesaid item, subsection (1-c) has been added and by this amendment, Sessions Judge has been given the power to pass an order for the transfer of the case. Under the explanation, it has been given that all Magistrates shall be deemed to be (Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J) subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this subsection. It is also borne out from the record that no notice had been issused to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. In view of the above discussion, I. Hold that the impugned order cannot be maintained and is set aside. The file shall be sent back to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch