01 / ANALYSIS
Overview of the Case
The Lahore High Court considered the boundary between a Magistrate’s judicial functions and administrative responsibilities. The dispute arose after a Magistrate refused to constitute a medical board for re-examination of injuries recorded in medico-legal certificates.
The decisive issue was jurisdiction, not the correctness of the injuries or the factual controversy behind the FIR. The Court held that criminal revision reaches orders of inferior criminal courts, not an administrative order made by a Magistrate acting as a designated authority.
02 / FACTUAL RECORD
Brief Facts
Following registration of FIR No. 379/2026 at Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal, an accused person sought a medical board to re-examine injuries to four persons, including the petitioner. The Magistrate, Section 30, Kabirwala, declined the request on 21 May 2026.
The Additional Sessions Judge allowed a revision on 15 June 2026 and ordered constitution of a District Standing Medical Board. Muhammad Nawaz challenged that decision before the High Court, contending that the original order was administrative and beyond revisional control.
03 / LEGAL ISSUES
Questions of Law
- Was the Magistrate exercising judicial jurisdiction when deciding an application for medical re-examination?
- Could an Additional Sessions Judge revise that order under sections 435 and 439-A CrPC?
- What was the result of the challenge to the Sessions Court’s order?
04 / JUDICIAL REASONS
The Court's Answers
Was the Magistrate exercising judicial jurisdiction when deciding an application for medical re-examination?
Answer. The Magistrate was acting as a persona designata in considering a request for medical re-examination, not adjudicating a criminal case as an inferior criminal court.
Could an Additional Sessions Judge revise that order under sections 435 and 439-A CrPC?
Answer. No. Sections 435, 439 and 439-A CrPC concern records and orders of inferior criminal courts. They did not empower the Additional Sessions Judge to revise the administrative decision.
What was the result of the challenge to the Sessions Court’s order?
Answer. The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and set aside the order dated 15 June 2026 for want of jurisdiction. It made no determination on the substance of the alleged injuries.
05 / PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Practical Relevance
Before invoking revision against a Magistrate’s order, criminal practitioners should identify the legal capacity in which the Magistrate acted. A judicial order and an administrative decision can demand different remedies.
The decision is especially relevant to medico-legal re-examination applications. It should not be read as determining the medical merits of any injury certificate or foreclosing a remedy that may be available under a different statutory route.
06 / SOURCES