HYDERABAD, Aug 26: The additional advocate-general of Sindh has said that following the recent torrential rains in the desert region, respondent Taluka Municipal Administration officials were provided machinery to drain out rainwater but they failed with the result that the entire area of Mithi submerged under rainwater.

So the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, on Tuesday issued notices to the judicial magistrate Mithi and four officials of the Taluka Municipal Administration, Mithi, over a criminal revision application, filed by the provincial government through the additional advocate general, Sindh, Masood A. Noorani.

The hearing of the revision has been fixed for Sept 8.

The revision was filed under section 435, read with section 439 CrPC and section 561-A CrPC, after the judicial magistrate, Mithi, let off the Taluka Municipal Administration officials under section 63 of the criminal procedure code.

The additional advocate-general has prayed the court to set aside the judicial magistrate’s order and direct him to act in accordance with law within the meaning of section 167 CrPC.

He also requested the court to call for recording the proceedings of the case which had been disposed of by the magistrate vide his order dated July 29 in which he had rejected the request of the in charge, investigation team, Mithi police, for granting remand under section 167 CrPC.

He said that the government provided additional manpower to Mithi and had it not been done several casualties would have occurred, and added that nevertheless movable and immovable properties were destroyed or lost.

He said that under the directives of the Sindh minister, who hails from Mithi, a notice was served on respondent Taluka Municipal Administration officials for attending a meeting, where he was insulted, obstruction created in carrying out his lawful duties and finally he was threatened to be killed.

The additional advocate general said that on the basis of FIR 28/03, respondent officials were arrested and when they were produced before the respondent judicial magistrate for obtaining remand, he released them under section 63 CrPC although section 324 PPC offence was exclusively to be tried by the sessions court.

He argued that the judicial magistrate could not even grant bail to the respondent officials, and added that the respondent magistrate mentioned in his order that he recorded the statements of the accused under section 342 CrPC, which on the face of it shows ipso facto as if he was holding trial.

He contended that the police should be allowed to re-arrest the respondent officials and proceed against them in accordance with the law.

The state counsel asserted that the Sindh High Court has concurrent jurisdiction within the meaning of section 435 CrPC, and under the circumstances and keeping in view the legal position, the impugned order merits to be set aside.