ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Revision Application No. S-38 of 2021.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For Orders on MA No. 2759/2021.

2. For Orders on office objection.

3. For Orders on MA No. 2760/2021.

4. For hearing of main case.

27-05-2021.

Mr. Shahzado Dreho, Advocate for the applicant.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

1. Granted.

2. Over ruled.

3. Granted subject to all just legal exceptions.

4. The applicant by way of instant Crl. Revision Application has impugned an order dated 23-12-2021 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Rohri, whereby his application u/s 227 Cr.P.C for amending the charge has been dismissed.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Rohri has dismissed the application of applicant without lawful justification and/or taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant during course of the incident. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order, with direction to Assistant Sessions Judge at Rohri, to amend the charge accordingly.

I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

Subsection 3 of section 17 of the code of criminal procedure Code reads as under:

“All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to Sessions Judges in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction, and he may from time to time, make rules consistent with his Code as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges.”

The perusal of above section of law lays down that Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to Sessions Judge of the District within which he exercise his jurisdiction; additionally Sessions Judge from time to time can frame rules for distribution of business among the Assistant Sessions Judges. It also lays down that an Assistant Sessions Judge has no original jurisdiction whatsoever, and his jurisdiction depends upon what the Sessions Judge devises for him and conversely the Sessions Judge can withdraw any case which may be pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge.

In case of Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Rauf and others (1983 PCr.LJ 1390) while dealing with similar question, the Division Bench of Sindh High Court had observed that;

“We are of the view that one of the main factors, which needs consideration in deciding questions of this nature is the venue of appeal. Normally, it can be said that the Court hearing an appeal against an order, or, judgment of another Court should be considered to be superior to that Court, and the concept of inferiority of Courts, as mentioned in section 435, Cr. P. C. can be decided on that rationals. In the present case also an Assistant Sessions Judge has to depend on the distribution of work that has to be done by the Sessions Judge, and appeals against the judgments of the Assistant Sessions Judge also lie to the Court of Sessions.”

The above discussion would make it clear that entire revisional jurisdiction against the orders of Assistant Sessions Judges would lie with the Sessions Judges having jurisdiction.

In view of above, the instant Criminal Revision Application being incompetent is dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction.

JUDGE

Nasim/P.A