Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1985.

‑‑ Arts. 203, 203‑A. 203‑DD & 203‑G‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979). Art. 3/4‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 ‑Conviction under Hudood laws‑ Revisional jurisdic tion of High Court‑Competency of‑Revisional and other jurisdic tion against decisions of Criminal Courts under Hudood Laws, held, exclusively vested in Federal Shariat Court‑Jurisdiction of superior Courts and Tribunal to entertain proceedings or exercise power or jurisdiction in respect of matter falling within powers and jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court were barred under Art. 203‑G, Constitution of Pakistan (1973).

1985 P Cr. L J 241; 1985 P Cr. L J 520; 1985 P Cr. L J 1931; 1985 P Cr. L J 2609 ; 1985 P Cr. L J 2611 ; P L D 1985 Lah. 65 and N L R 1985 Criminal 306 ref.

Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli assisted by Muhammad Tariq Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Muhammad Irshad, the petitioner was charged under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and on trial by the Magistrate First Class, Mansehra he was found guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced to two years' R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default 5 months' R. 1. further. Since the order imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mansehra who, on partial acceptance, reduced the sentence to one year's R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 5.000 or in default one month's S. 1. further, Petitioner filed instant Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1985 in this Court as against his conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.

2. At the outset this Court took exception to the maintainability o the revision petition in view el Article 203‑DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, vide revisional and other jurisdiction against the decisions of criminal Courts under the Hudood Laws have been exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court and Article 203‑G of the Constitution was to bar the jurisdiction of Courts, Tribunals including the Supreme Court and High Court to entertain any proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of matters failing within the powers and jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court.

3. As adjournment was sought by Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocate assisted by Muhammad Tariq Khan, Advocate to study the subject and assist the Court in the adjudication of the subject‑matter. Accordingly full fledged arguments ware addressed on the proposition on the fallowing day.

4. Reference was made to 1985 P Cr. L J 241. 1985 P Cr. L J 520 and 1985 P Cr. L 1 1931. In the cases referred above the honourable Judges of the Lahore High Court sitting in Single Bench entertained criminal revisions as against orders made by the criminal Courts under the laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood. In the first case, on acceptance of the revision petition, the conviction and sentence were set aside in the second one the revision petition was dismissed as premature for no final order has been passed as yet while in the third one, on acceptance of the revision petition, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted. Reference was also made to a judgment and order, dated 30‑1‑1985 of an Honourable Judge of the Peshawar High Court sitting in Single Bench when Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1984 was entertained and conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced. In the aforesaid cases an objection to the competency of the revision petition was, however, not raised before the Courts and the revision petitions were entertained and adjudicated accordingly on merits.

5. On the subject there are contrary pronouncements published in 1985 P Cr. L. J 2609 ; 1985 P Cr. L J 2611 ; P L D 1985 Lah. 65 and N L R 1985 Criminal 306 in alt of which it has been unanimously held that a revision petition to High Court in respect of Hudood cases was not competent and that revisional powers in respect thereto were exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203‑DD read with Article 203‑G of the Constitution of the Islamic, Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

6. In view of the legal position enunciated in the preceding paragraph I would accordingly hold that Article 203‑DD of the Constitution vests the revisional jurisdiction in the Federal Shariat Court while Article 200‑6 of the Constitution lays down that no Court including the Supreme Court and a High Court shall entertain any proceedings (herein criminal revision) or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of an matter within the power or jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. I Article 203‑A, Chapter 3 ‑A of the Constitution it is further laid down that the provisions of the Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding any thing contained in the Constitution. Hence even the supervisory ,jurisdiction of the High Court over the subordinate Courts provided undo Article 203, Chapter 3 of the Constitution shall be overrided by the provisions of Chapter 3‑A containing the provisions like Article 203‑DD and Article 203‑6, respectively vesting revisional jurisdiction in the Federal Shariat Court and providing for a bar of jurisdiction of other Court. including the Supreme Court and High Court.

7. As a sequal to the afore going discussion this Court would accord ingly order for the return of the criminal revision (original) to the petitioner for its presentation before the Federal Shariat Court while the file shall be consigned to the Record Room after placing a copy of the petition on it.

H. A. K. Revision petition returned.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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