' This petition under section 439 read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Is directed against an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana dismissing the earlier revision application for setting aside the order passed by S. D. M., Shandadkot under section 145(6), Cr. P. C.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent Muhammad Kassim had purchased agricultural land by registered sale-deed on 21-1-1974. Petitioner Rajo was hart on that land. Rajo had instituted pre- emption proceedings in respect of that sale under the Land Reforms and the Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal had upheld his claim for repurchasing this land, on payment of Rs, 6,000 to Muhammad Kassim. In appeal by Rajo the Assistant Commissioner reduced this price to Rs, 3,600. Rajo however, did not deposit the sale price within the fixed time and he thus lost his right of pre-emption. But Rajo continued to hold the land as its owner and denied the right acquired by Muhammad Kassim.
Since there was a dispute between the two parties concerning this land Muhammad Kassim filed an application in the Court of S. D. M., Shandadkot for proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. An order under section 145(1), Cr. P. C. Was then passed by the S. D. M. Calling upon the parties to file a written statement and to produce necessary evidence in support of their claims. The parties accordingly filed their written statements and produced documentary evidence. The Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M., Shandadkot thereafter passed an order under section 145(6), Cr. P. C.
That Muhammad Kassim as the owner/Zamindar continue to take the Zamindari share of the produce and the hari should take the harl's share until decision of the civil suit filed by Muhammad Kassim in the Court of Ist Class Civil Judge, Larkana. Being dissatisfied with this order Rajo filed a revision application in the Court of Session at Larkana which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 29-3 1976. The revision petition was dismissed on the ground that section 145, Cr. P. C. Proceedings were competent and the order of the S. D. M. Regarding the produce had been passed to prevent any breach of the peace until the final decision by the civil Court; that there was, therefore, no ground for any interference. Against this order in the first revision application the petitioner has moved the second revision application in the High Court.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Fattah Memon on behalf of the petitioner that the original order of S. D. M., Shandadkot was defective and without jurisdiction. That the learned Magistrate had proceeded to pass orders to confirm the title of applicant Muhammad Kassim to the Zamindari share of the produce and this was beyond the purview of section 145, Cr. P. C. Which was concerning the disputes relating to land only. Mr. Memon has accordingly asked for the entire proceedings to be gnashed, allowing the petitioner, Rajo hart, to appropriate the entire produce of this land until the decision of the civil Court.
4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that a revision application having already been decided against the order of the S. D. M. By the Court of Session, Larkana a second revision application was not maintainable in the High Court. The Law Reforms in respect of the Criminal Procedure Code came into force in the Province of Sind under Notification No, Legis. 4 (8)/75 published in Sind Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 23-12-1975. The application under section 145, Cr. P. C. Had been filed by Muhammad Kassim on 24-10-1975 on which final order was passed by the S. D. M. The revision petition was then moved and it was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana on 29- 3-76. These orders were, therefore, passed after tie Law Reforms came into force and the Additional Sessions Judge had obviously disposed of the revision application under section 439-A, Cr. P. C.
The High Court's power of revision being concurrent under section 439(4) (b) the High Court could not entertain a second revision application with respect to the order made by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr. P. C. The present revision application would not, therefore, be competent.
5. Mr. Memon has argued that he has also introduced section 561-A for quashment of the orders and the powers under section 561-A can be exercised exclusively by the High Court. There is, however, no occasion for exercising of any powers under section 561-A in the course of this petition.
B There are no pending proceedings which could be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The S. D. M. Had passed order under section 145(6), Cr. P. C. And there was nothing more to be done by the S. D. M. ; the proceedings having been concluded by him subject to orders of the civil Court. The question of quashment of these proceedings would not, therefore, arise.
6. Regarding the objection of Mr. Memon that the Magistrate had used the language as if he was confirming the title of the purchaser to the Zamindari share of the produce, it may be stated that any technical defect or use of wrong phraseology by the Magistrate in these proceedings would not affect his jurisdiction so long as there was material on record to justify the action taken by him.
7. In the result the stay order is vacated and the revision application is dismissed.