1993 PLP 1951 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Arts. 212‑B (8) & 185 (3)‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance before High Court was that case of murder registered at her instance was illegally got transferred from ordinary Criminal Court to the Special Court for Speedy Trials resulting in the conviction of a few and acquittal of the others‑‑‑Grounds in support of petition for leave to appeal against judgment of High Court whereby her Constitutional petition was dismissed, were that she was not heard before ordering the transfer of the case‑‑‑High Court although dismissed petitioner's Constitutional petition yet had not taken note of cl.(8) of Art. 212‑B of the Constitution which provides that no Court would exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings before, or order or sentence passed by a Special Court or a Supreme Appellate Court constituted under a law except as provided in such law‑‑‑Expression "any jurisdiction whatsoever, in relation to any proceedings" contained in Cl.(8) of Art. 212‑B of the Constitution was wide enough to include the challenge thrown by petitioner to impugned proceedings‑‑‑Proper course for petitioner was to have raised whatever objection she had to the proceedings before Special Court itself‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate -on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case under sections 302,148, 149, P.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑3‑1992 whereby a Constitution petition filed by her was dismissed on the ground that discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution was not to be made available to her.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the case of murder got registered at her instance vide FIR No.249 dated 18‑5‑1989, Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Sahiwal was illegally got transferred from the ordinary Criminal Court to the Court of Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials resulting in the conviction of a few by the Special Court and acquittal of the others. On appeal, the Supreme Appellate Court modified the judgment slightly by its judgment dated 21‑10‑1991. The grounds in support of the petition were that she was not heard before ordering the transfer of the case.

3. The High Court as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner in instituting the Constitution petition have not taken note of clause (8) of Article 212‑B of the Constitution which provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no Court Shall exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings before or order or sentence passed by a Special Court or a Supreme Appellate Court constituted under a law referred to in clause (1), except as provided in such law". The expression "any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings" is wide enough to include the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the proceedings. The proper course for the petitioner was to have raised whatever objection she had to the proceedings before the Special Court itself. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby refused. AA./Z‑153/S Leave refused.