1996 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 439‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑DD‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Impugned interim order passed by Trial Court in the case relating to the enforcement of Hudood being revisable only by the Federal Shariat Court under Art.203‑DD of the Constitution, High Court had no revisional jurisdiction in the matter‑‑‑Revision petition before High Court was not maintainable and the same was dismissed as such accordingly. [Jurisdiction]. Khurshid v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 409 Munawar Hussain alias Maluka and another v. Muhammad Nawaz etc. 1993 PCr.LJ 1955 and Syed Maskin Shah v. The State 1994 MLD 190 ref. Nazir Ahmad Shami for Petitioner. Mian Ahmed Sher Lali for Respondents. Mian Muhammad Bashir, A.A.‑G. assisted by M. Iqbal Malik for the State. The petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 23‑5‑1995 in case F.I.R. No. 82/92 registered at Police Station, Shahkot under section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It has been contended that the petitioner who was complainant in the case F.I.R. No.82/92 had moved the application before the trial Court on 27‑4‑1995 seeking permission to produce copies of report Roznamcha, plaint and the order with a view to prove his case which was dismissed by the trial Court on 23‑5‑1995 end that the impugned order was, perverse, improper and liable to be set aside. It was further prayed that the application for production of documents be accepted. The learned counsel for the complainant and also for the State opposed the same.

2. I am of the view that during the trial of a criminal case prosecution had no right to produce additional evidence as the Court considers the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses available and other material placed before it at the time of framing of the charge. No material can be allowed to be placed on record against the accused subsequent to the framing of the l charge.

3. The respondents have also challenged the maintainability of the present revision petition. Referring to the provisions of Article 203(DD) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 it was contended that it was only within the jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court to entertain the revision petition against an order passed by the trial Court even though the same be an interim order. Reliance was placed on Khurshid v. State 1990 PCr.LJ 409, Munawar Hussain alias Maluka and another v. Muhammad Nawaz etc. 1993 PCr.LJ 1955 and Syed Maskin Shah v. The State 1994 MLD 190. 3‑A. In view of the citations referred‑to above by the learned counsel or the accused and the learned A.A.‑G. I am of the view that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and the revision petition was not maintainable before this Court. The same is dismissed as such. N.H.Q./N‑351/L Revision dismissed.