1. ' The petitioner had gone into revision against an order dated 8-7-1976 passed by the District Magistrate admittedly under section 516-A, Cr. P. C., in respect of a property seized from the petitioner. The petitioner had applied to the learned District Magistrate for restoration of the goods to his custody, but this had not been allowed and instead the goods had been ordered to be given on sapurdari to one Inam Elahi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the revision application on 27-10-1976 for the short reason that "The revision lies if the Court has acted without jurisdiction and against law. The learned counsel could not prove by cogent reasons that learned District Magistrate, Sargodha, has acted without jurisdiction or against law."
2. It is contended before me, and not without force, that the view taken of the law by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is erroneous in the context of the revisionary powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. The scope of revision under the criminal law is distinct from and wider than that under the civil law, inasmuch as the power is not confined as to jurisdictional defects only in the impugned order. Section 435, Cr. P. C fully empowers the revisional Court to satisfy itself "as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court ". It is, thus, obvious that the learned Addl.
2. Sessions Judge has not exercised jurisdiction conferred on him by law. This had occasioned a failure of justice and calls for interference under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
3. ' I, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 27-10-1976 and direct that the learned Addl.
4. Sessions Judge shall rehear the petitioner's revision application and dispose of the same according to law.