1. ' A complaint made by the Assistant Controller of Buildings, Zone-VIII (KBCA) against six persons for an offence under section 6 read with 19 of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 was entertained by Judicial Magistrate, VI South, Karachi and the case was brought on record. The order was challenged in revision but the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, to whom revision was entrusted, dismissed the revision, which order has been assailed in these proceedings with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate.
2. ' By consent the matter is admitted to regular hearing and arguments are heard.
3. ' The eminent contention raised in this behalf by Mr, Jawaid Haider Kazmi is that section 19 of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 prescribes the punishment of simple imprisonment and in the alternative fine but the lowest quantum of fine is' fixed at Rs,20,000 meaning thereby that the Court could impose fine of Rs,20,000 or more-whereas, under section 32(1)(a), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can impose fine not exceeding Rs,15,000/-. Secondly, the notification within the meaning of section 4 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 has not been issued strictly in accordance with the said provisions. It was also argued that the complainant was not authorised in express terms to file a complaint and that the cognizance under section 190(1)(c), Cr . P.C. Was erroneously taken by the Magistrate. These contentions were met by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order. However, learned State counsel conceded that learned Magistrate has no power to impose fine of Rs,20,000, therefore, he could not take cognizance.
4. ' It is correct that in this case learned Magistrate can impose sentence of imprisonment but he cannot impose sentence of fine for the offence. It is, however, not expected the learned Magistrate would assume or declare that he will pass sentence of imprisonment and not of fine Nevertheless, I would agree with the legried revisional Court that within the meaning of section 347, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is competent to forward the case, to the Court of Sessions for assigning, it to appropriate Court. Therefore, quashment of the proceedings in such an event would not be justified. Prayer for quashment is as such rejected.
5. ' Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazmi on the point of authorization was of the view that the right at the initial stage before Judicial Magistrate the, complainant should prove that he has been authorised to institute the complaint. This point, can legitimately be considered and decided by the appropriate.
6. Court to whom the complaint is ultimately forwarded.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that this complaint be forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court who may take further proceedings in accordance with law and the appropriate Court should determine and decide the legal objections. The application stands disposed of.