The necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No.660 registered at Police Station, Satellite Town, Gujranwala on 27-12-2001 for an offence under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 in which the allegation against Faisal Shehzad accused is that he was found in possession of a weapon for which he did not possess any valid licence. The petitioner is also the complainant of case F.I.R. No.666 registered at the same Police Station on 31-12-2001 for an offence under section 16 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 wherein the allegation against Mukhtar Masih accused is that he had handed over his licensed weapon to the abovementioned Faisal Shehzad accused without any valid authorization in that regard. The challans in both the above mentioned cases have already been submitted and in case F.I.R. No.660 the learned Area Magistrate has not only taken cognizance of the offence as well as the case but he has also commenced the trial of Faisal Shehzad accused by distributing copies of the statements of witnesses on 3-6-2002. During this while the mother of Faisal Shehzad accused had submitted an application before the higher police authorities maintaining therein that the present petitioner had falsely foisted the above mentioned case F.I.R.
No.660 upon her son. The said application was inquired into departmentally and ultimately the allegation levelled by the mother of Faisal Shehzad accused was found by the local police to be correct and, resultantly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala punished the petitioner by passing an order regarding reduction of the petitioner's rank. It was also opined by the said police officer that F.I.R. No.660 ought to be got cancelled from the Area Magistrate. Consequently on 16-2- 2002 a cancellation report was prepared which was submitted before the Area Magistrate on 6-9- 2002. However, on 20-9-2002 the Area Magistrate disagreed with the proposed cancellation of the F.I.R. As by that time the Area Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the case as well as of the offence and- the trial of the above mentioned accused person was pending.
2. As regards the case F.I.R. No.666 mentioned above on 31-7-2002 Mukhtar Masih accused pleaded guilty to the charge and confessed his guilt before the learned Area Magistrate and on the basis of the said plea he was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 16 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. That conviction and sentence of the said accused person was never challenged by the said convict and that aspect of the matter has attained finality.
3. On 24-9-2002 the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala (Ch. Asad Raza) entertained a miscellaneous application submitted by the mother of Faisal Shehzad accused (the accused person in case F.I.R. No.660) and on 26-9-2002 the learned Sessions Judge passed a detailed order on the said application whereby the order passed by the Area Magistrate on 20-9-2002 refusing to cancel F.I.R. No.660 was set aside, the said F.I.R. Was ordered to be cancelled and an order was passed under section 250, Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.15,000 to the said accused person on account of falsely implicating him in the said criminal case. That order passed by the learned Sessions --Judge, Gujranwala has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present writ petition.
4. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala had no jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous application submitted by the mother of an accused person as even a revision petition was not maintainable against an order passed by an Area Magistrate refusing to discharge an accused person or to cancel an F.I.R. It has also been argued that cancellation of an F.I.R. Is not possible after taking of cognizance of the case and of the offence by a trial Court and even otherwise such a power or jurisdiction is only available to a Magistrate and not to a Sessions Judge. It has lastly been argued that the provisions of section 250, Criminal Procedure Code come into play where a Magistrate acquits an accused person and not where a Sessions Judge cancels an F.I.R. Through exercise of jurisdiction not vested in him. The learned Additional Advocate-General has straight--away conceded before this Court that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala has been passed in clear excess of jurisdiction and the said order may be declared by this Court to have been passed without lawful authority.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the record of this case appended with this petition I have felt myself in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain a miscellaneous application submitted by the mother of an accused person whose case was pending trial before a Magistrate and then to pass the impugned order on the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner is quite right in maintaining that even a revision petition was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala against an order passed by a Magistrate refusing to discharge an accused person or to cancel an F.I.R. As such an order is only an administrative order and not a judicial order amenable to revisional jurisdiction. There cannot be any cavil with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cancellation of an F.I.R. Is not permissible after taking of cognizance of the case and of the offence by a trial Court. All these aspects of the matter have already been considered in detail by this Court in the case of Ashiq Hussain v.
Sessions Judge, Lodhran and others (PLD 2001 Lah. 271). It appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was not aware of the said law declared by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also justified in maintaining that the provisions of section 250, Criminal Procedure Code come into play where an accused person has been formally acquitted by a Magistrate. That surely was not the position in the present case as the case against Faisal Shehzad accused was pending before the learned trial Magistrate at a time when the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala had passed the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala ought also to have known that cancellation of an F.I.R. Is a totally different thing than acquittal of an accused person by a trial Court. Thus, looked at from any angle, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was totally devoid of jurisdiction and lawful authority. It may be true that the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala might have felt strongly against the petitioner on account of the departmental proceedings taken against him as it had been opined by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala that the petitioner had falsely implicated the above mentioned Faisal Shehzad accused in F.I.R. No.660 but at the same time it is equally true that an alleged illegality committed by the petitioner could not have been rectified through another illegality to be committed by a judicial officer and that too of the rank of a Sessions Judge. Two wrongs surely cannot make a right. It appears that in his zeal to do justice the learned Sessions Judge outran his jurisdiction. The law had to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judge to take its own course and the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered in the matter at a premature stage while putting on the mantle of an evangelist or a reformer. By virtue of the provisions of Article 175 of the Constitution no Court has any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or the law. In these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala assumed a jurisdiction which was surely not available to him. I have, therefore, no option but to allow this writ petition and to declare the impugned order as well as action of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.