1995 P Cr (PLP)

The point raised requires consideration. Admit. Notice. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghazi, A.A.-G. accepts notice. As the matter is quite short, both the learned counsel pray that the case be heard and decided today.

2. Wali Muhammad and Abid Hussain, petitioners, were arrested in case F.I.R. No.244, dated 16-11-1994 Offence under section 25-C of the Telegraph Act registered at Police Station City, Kamalia. This F.I.R. was registered on the written complaint of Abdul Rashid Khan, Assistant Engineer, Phones Department, Kamalia. The complainant alleged in the F.I.R. that the two accused illegally and without authority by tampering with the alignment of Phone No.411427 removed the telephone from the actual place of installation to the Extra Departmental Public Call Office (E.D.P.C.O.) Telephone No.411735 premises. The accused misused Telephone No.411427 as P.C.O. which resulted in the outstanding bill of Rs.1,03,303 which was an offence under section 25-C of the Telegraph Act XIII of 1885. The two accused/petitioners submitted an application for bail before arrest in the Court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after seeking the legal opinion on the subject from District Attorney, Toba Tek Singh, returned the application stating that he had no jurisdiction to grant bail as the offence under section 25-C of the Telegraph Act fell in the schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The petitioners through this writ petition seek a direction to the learned Magistrate to entertain the petition for the grant of bail.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited 1993 PCr.LJ 1211. In this case, learned Single Judge in similar circumstances declared that section 25-D was not a scheduled offence and was triable by the ordinary Courts.

5. Learned A.A.-G. has cited 1991 PCr.LJ Note

79. In this case, learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court declared that the offence under section 25-D of the said Act was a scheduled offence, therefore, was triable by the learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities.

6. Against the judgment reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 1211; the State filed petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan State v. Muhammad Tahir Abid C.P. No.662%L of 1993. This petition was heard by Mr. Justice S.S. Jan and Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial and the Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the view of the Lahore High Court. In this view of the matter, the controversy seems to have been settled for all times by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court with the following observations:-- "The Special Courts have been created by section 3, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The extent of their jurisdiction is set out in the schedule which forms part of the said Act. The offences under section 452 and section 25-D, ibid, are not included in the Schedule. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without jurisdiction. This petition is clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed."

7. I hold that section 25 of the said Act is only a scheduled offence under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities and is exclusively triable by the Special Court. Sections 25-A to 25-F were added by the amendments incorporated in 1914 and 1975. These are independent provisions covering different subjects and different offences and are triable by the ordinary Courts. 1, therefore, accept this writ petition and direct the learned Magistrate to entertain the petition for bail and decide it on merits. There is no order as to costs. A.A./W-58/L Petition accepted.