1992 PLP 193 (SCMR)

ABDUL KARIM KHAN KUNDI, MEMBER‑‑‑Mr. Justice Raza A. Khan, Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials, Peshawar, by his judgment and ‑order, dated 25‑9‑1991, recorded the conviction of Daniel Boyd, Muslim name Saifullah on the charge of possession and recovery of unlicensed .30 bore pistol No.FF 7669 (country made) alongwith 3 live rounds in the charger from the Almirah of his house on his pointation on 7‑7‑1991 at 11 P.M. within the limits of police station Hayatabad, Peshawar, and accordingly sentenced him to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year R.I. further under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance.

2. Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1991 was filed by the convict as against his aforesaid conviction and sentences in the Supreme Appellate Court.

3. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant raised the objection to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for want of order of the Federal Government vis‑a‑vis the trial of the case by the Special Court as required under section 5(1) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance XXV of 1991), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The objection was met by the learned Additional Advocate‑General with reference to section 7 of the Ordinance read with the Schedule including offences under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, at serial No.6 and contended that the Special Court had the power and jurisdiction to take direct cognizance of a case triable by it without the case being sent to it under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

4. In this context, we had, however, the advantage to refer to the definition of "offence" in section 2(c) to mean an offence specified in the Schedule or an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force which in the opinion of the Government is gruesome, brutal and sensational in character etcetera, etcetera needing to be tried most speedily. Section 5(1) states that a case relating to any offence registered shall be tried and decided speedily by the Special Court if the Government makes the order about its trial A by the Special Court after forming an opinion about the offence being gruesome, brutal and sensational etcetera. Thus, a case registered relating to any offence whether a scheduled offence or offence punishable under any other law about which the Government forms an opinion of its being gruesome, brutal and sensational etcetera and orders its trial by a Special Court shall be taken cognizance of by the Special Court and the jurisdiction of the Special Court shall be subject to a formal order of the Federal Government of scheduled offences and offences punishable under other laws.

5. In nutshell, the Federal Government has not made the requisite order of the trial of the case by the Special Court as required under section 5(1) of the Ordinance and as such the Special Court could not take cognizance of the case to proceed with its trial arid the trial thus stands vitiated. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentences are set aside. These are the reasons for the short order earlier announced on 14‑10‑1991. M:B.A./2/S.A.C. Appeal accepted.