Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1985, heard on 22nd February, 1986.

‑‑Ss. 520 & 561‑A‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Revision‑‑Superdari‑‑Offences under Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and appeals therefrom lie to Federal Shariat Court‑‑Revision brought to High Court against order of Sessions Judge, whereby he refused to give stolen property on Superdari, held, was not competent.‑‑[Revision (criminal)‑ Jurisdiction].

Malik Rabnawaz Noon for Petitioner.

Raja Abdul Ghafoor for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1986.

This criminal revision has been brought from an order, dated 29‑10‑1985 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he has refused to give on Superdari Taxi Car No. LEY 6497 to the petitioner who is admittedly an owner. The car was allegedly used by the petitioner's brother, who was driving it, and three other persons towards the robbing of one Chinee Muslim namely Jamal Nasir of a bag containing 1,000 US dollars who was deceitfully made to board the car alongwith his companion namely Qurban. A case was registered under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 against the brother of the petitioner namely Sagheer Ahmad and three others at the instance of Qurban. The said taxi car was taken into possession by the police.

2. The question which arises on the very face of this criminal revision is whether the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be subjected to the power of superintendence of this Court so as to say that if justified a revision would be competent to this Court therefrom. The offence under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 under section 24 of the said Ordinance is exclusively triable by a Court of Session and an appeal therefrom lies to the Federal Shariat Court.

Now the above said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is to be taken as having been passed in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction as to any ancillary matter arising out of the case registered under section 17 of the said Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance so where the legality of such an order is intended to be questioned that can be done only by taking recourse to Article 203‑DD of the Constitution of Pakistan whereunder the Federal Shariat Court has been vested with the power of superintendence as to any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by any Criminal Court under any law relating to the Enforcement of Hudood. The reference can be had to the very provision which is being reproduced here:‑--

"Revisional and other jurisdiction of the Court.‑‑(1) The Court may ca or and examine the record o any case decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed by, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and; if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

(2) In any case the record of which has been called for by the Court, the Court may pass such order as it may deem fit and may enhance the sentence:

Provided that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to authorise the Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and no order under this Article shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard in his own defence.

(3) The Court shell have such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by or under any law."

In view of the above special law conferring the jurisdiction upon the Federal Shariat Court the revision brought to this Court is incompetent, therefore, it is dismissed.

M.Y.H. Petition 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.