| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3028 = 1973 SLD 3028 = 1973 PCRLJ 135 |
Azad J. & K
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1970, decided on 19th September 1970.
Presented By: Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf and Ch. Rahim Dad Khan, JJ
Appellant in person. Kh. Basher Ahmad Farooki for
Respondent No. 1. M. A. Hafeez, Government Advocate for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1970, decided on 19th September 1970.
Presented By: Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf and Ch. Rahim Dad Khan, JJ
Appellant in person. Kh. Basher Ahmad Farooki for
Respondent No. 1. M. A. Hafeez, Government Advocate for the State.
M. A. FAROOQ-Appellant
VERSUS
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, MUZAFFARABAD AND OTHER-Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 435, 143, 4(m), 145
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 18913), s. 435, 143 & 4(m)---Expression "any proceeding" in S. 435-'Word "proceeding" means "judicial proceeding" as defined under S. 4 (m)-Test whether proceeding is or is not judicial proceeding is to see whether presiding officer has power to take evidence on oath and not whether he had actually recorded such evidence-Magistrate being empowered to record evidence on oath under S. 145 mere fact that he had not recorded any evidence before making an order would not take proceeding out of ambit of "judicial proceeding" so as to make order not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under. S. 435. The High Court had refused to interfere under section 435, Cr. P. C. with an order passed by a District Magistrate (to all appearance it exercise of power under section 145, Cr. P. C.) on the ground that he had not passed a preliminary order within meaning of section 145 because the parties were not called upon to put their written statement and no evidence had been taken. The Single Judge held that the order was an executive order and as such was not open to revision under section 435, Cr. P. C. Held: The High Court has been armed with the powers of revi sion under section 435, Cr. P. C. only if the order complained against was passed: (i) in any proceedings; and (ii) by an inferior criminal Court. The word 'proceeding' has not been defined any where in the Act itself. Section 4(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code however defines a judicial proceeding as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. The framers of the Code intended to give the term a very wide meaning. It has, therefore, been held that the test whether a proceeding is or is not a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the definition in this clause is whether in the course of the proceedings the Presiding Judge has the power legally to take evidence on oath and not whether he had actually taken such evidence. The District Magistrate in proceeding under section 145, P. C. may not have recorded any evidence or come to any find-but that by itself would not…