Law: Conciliation Courts Ordinance (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1963

Section: 17, 2

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 350

(a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961) S. 17 read with S. 2(c)-Transfer of case Controlling Authority-Means Deputy Commissioner in case of Union Council in West Pakistan Case triable by and pending before Conciliation Court-Controlling Authority, held, empowered under S. 17 to transfer such case to an ordinary criminal Court if public interest or ends of justice so demand. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (VLIV of 1898), .S .350 read with Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961), S. 11 Deputy Commissioner in capacity of Controlling Authority ordering transfer of case from Conciliation Court to ordinary criminal Court Contention that provisions contained in S. 350 of Criminal Procedure Code not applicable to a case so transferred-Held, misconceived Transferee Curt could adopt no other procedure except one under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. (c) Criminal. Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 350(1)-Trial, de novo-Omission of Cl. (a) from proviso to subsection (1) of S. 350.--Held, did not in any manner fetter discretion of Magistrate to hold a de novo trial.   JUDGMENT The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura, under section 17 of the Con ciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, in his capacity as Controlling Authority, transferring the case pending against them before the Conciliation Court under sections 504/323/34, P. P. C. to the Court of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi, Magistrate 1st Class. The legality of the impugned order is challenged on the grounds firstly, that as shown by the record, the order was passed by the District Magistrate in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, and not as Controlling Authority and secondly, that the provision contained in section 350 of the Cr. P. C. being inapplicable to a case so transferred to an ordinary Court, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi, learned Magistrate could not proceed afresh by holding de novo trial. 2. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and having also heard the learned counsel for the State, I am clearly of the view that the petition merits dismissal on more than one grounds. In the first instance, it cannot be denied than the…