Find a Lawyer

Shariat Appeal No. K‑1 of 1981, decided on 26th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of Federal. Shariat Court dated 22‑12‑1980 in Shariat Petitions Nos. K‑8 to K‑12 of 1980).

‑‑‑Arts: 203‑B, 203‑C & 203‑D‑Federal Shariat Court empowered under Art. 203‑B to examine and decide whether any law or a provision of law was repugnant to Injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of Holy Prophet‑Term "law" as explained in Art. 203‑C includes custom, usage having force of law but amongst other term "law" does not include (for a specified period) "any fiscal law or any law relating to levy and collection of taxes fees or banking or insurance practice and procedure‑Provisions of banking laws excluded from purview of Art. 203‑B ‑ State Bank of Pakistan Act (XXXIII of 1956) ‑ Banking Companies Ordinance (of 1962) ‑ Interests Act (XXXII of 1839).

G. M. Saleem, Advocate (absent) for Appellants.

Anwar Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 26th October, 1983.

This appeal filed under Article 203‑F(1) of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22nd December, 1981, whereby in a joint decision five petitions moved before it under Article 203‑D of the Constitution were dismissed as not competent.

This appeal having been called out, no one has appeared to prosecute it and assist the Court. We have ourselves examined the correctness or other wise of the impugned order. As it is mentioned therein, the challenge before the Federal Shariat Court was to various provisions of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, and the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, read with The Interests Act, 1839. The Federal Shariat Court found that the legal provisions brought under scrutiny before it related to those laws which are excluded from the jurisdiction of that Court. Accordingly it declined to grant the declaration prayed for.

Article 203‑D empowers the Federal Shariat Court to examine and decide whether any law or a provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet referred in the said Article as "injunctions of Islam". The term law as explained in Article 302‑C of the Constitution, includes any custom or usage, having the force of law but amongst others, it does not include (for a specified period) "any fiscal law or any law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fees or banking or insurance practice and procedure" The provisions of banking laws, challenged in this appeal as held by the Federal Shariat Court, are excluded from the purview of law as defined in Article 203‑B.

We have perused the grounds of appeal filed in this Court as also the grounds of the petition filed before the Federal Shariat Court. No cogent reason worth any serious examination has been advanced to show as to why the provisions brought under challenge do not stand excluded from the definition of law as held by the Federal Shariat Court. The other plea taken in paragraph 14(g) namely, that the protection under Clause 'C' of Article 203‑B is to expire on 10th February, 19b2, and hence the subject of this Shariat Appeal may be kept in abeyance until the expiration of the stipulated period" is of no avail to the appellants for the obvious reason that even if the original period has by now expired and even if a subsequent extension, if any, has not to be taken into account for purpose of the decision of this appeal, the effect remains that the impugned order of the Federal Shariat Court was passed on 22nd December, 1980, when the bar relatable to the definition of law discussed above was fully attracted. That being so the impugned order as it stands does not suffer from any infirmity. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

M.Z. M. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.