' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction was not competent one because the order of learned Magistrate dated 9-7-2001 is an administrative order and not a judicial order, that it was held in PLD 1985 SC 62 titled as Bahadar v. State that order regarding the discharge of the accused persons passed by a Magistrate is not a judicial order but an administrative order and not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. He has relied upon 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 497, 1993 SCM R 187 and 1999 P.Cr.L.J.
276.
2. Learned Additional A.-G. Submits that whether the Magistrate agrees with the report of the police for the discharge of the accused persons or not, that order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction 'in fact writ petition should have been filed before this Court. He supports the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Magistrate in his impugned order dated 9-7-2001 has also ordered the police to submit the challan, so these two lines of the impugned order makes it a judicial order. As no other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, .So he deems it fit to argue this case on this legal point.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a settled law that whenever a Magistrate passes an order on the application of the police for the discharge of the accused, may be not agreed with the police or vice versa, that order remains an administrative order and .Not a judicial order and that. Order is not amenable in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon PLD 1985 SC 62 titled as Bahadar v. State and other judgments, even the learned Additional A.-G. Has supported the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and order impugned passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 1,-1-2002 is set aside.