P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑This petition seeks the same relief as was sought by co‑accused of the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 994 of 1962 which was dismissed by us on the 11th June 1962.

2. Some points raised in this petition were not raised in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 994 of 1962 and it is these points only that we will deal with. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that even after the promulgation of Ordinance VIII of 1962 by the President of Pakistan the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 could not be made applicable to districts other than those which were near the Frontiers of Pakistan. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the preamble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation which does lend some support to the contention raised. In Ordinance VIII of 1962, however, it is stated in unambiguous terms that the Regulation could be more applicable to any part of the Province of West Pakistan and it was no denied by learned counsel for the petitioners that if the pre amble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation had been suitable amended the Regulation could have been applied to any part of the Province of West Pakistan. We cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners because it is well‑settled that a preamble to a legislative measure cannot be utilized by Courts for attaching to the expressions used in the statute meaning other than those which they ordinarily have, though it may be called to aid where the expressions to be interpreted are ambiguous. As the relevant expressions occurring in the amending Ordinance VIII of 1962 are not at all ambiguous the preamble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation cannot have the weight learned counsel for the petitioners wants us to attach to it.

3. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that section 2 (a) of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (Wes Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 (West Pakistan Ordinance XII of 1962) was bad law and could not be enforced by Court with the result that the Council‑of‑Elders dealing with the case of the petitioners at Sargodha had no jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied in this regard on Article 5 of the Laws Continuance in Force Order, 1958 and on Article 102 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was named in the above order as the late Constitution as well as on provisions of law in force at the relevant time that is on the 9th of April 1962, on which date West Pakistan Ordinance X11 of 1962 was promulgated by the Governor of West Pakistan. The argument was that the matter about which the Governor had made a law was on the Concurrent List of legislative subjects and, therefore, if any, provision of the Ordinance promulgated by the Governor was repugnant to the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, which was to be deemed to be an existing law for the purposes of Article 110 of the late Constitution, the provision of the Ordinance which suffered from such repugnancy was void. Learned counsel for the petitioners said that as according to the definition of the expression "Council‑of‑Elders" given in the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, as it stood originally, the Council was to be formed according to Pathan and Baluch usage e in the matter the Governor of West Pakistan could not enact that a Council‑of‑Elders could be constituted in some other manner. It is not necessary for us to determine in this case what weight this argument would have if the case in which it is addressed relates to a place where a usage with regard to the formation of Council‑of‑Elders existed as we have to confine our attention to the present case which is from the District of Sargodha. It was not denied that reference to a Council‑of- Elders could be made in Sargodha only after the Frontier Crimes Regulation was made applicable to the district which was done on the 26th April 1962, nor could it be urged that a usage with regard to the composition of Council‑of‑Elders existed in the District of Sargodha at that time. It is clear that at least in so far as the districts to which the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, ware made applicable by virtue of the provisions of President's Ordinance VIII of 1962, which has been referred to in paragraph 2, were concerned, the Governor of West Pakistan was legislating on a matter regarding which no law existed. That being so the West Pakistan Ordinance XII of 1962 cannot be held repugnant to an existing law contained in the Concurrent List of legislative subjects in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in so far as the District of Sargodha was concerned.

4. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was that some provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, would be ill‑suited to districts other than those that were near the Frontiers of Pakistan and some other provisions of the Regulation would he difficult to enforce in those districts and. 'I therefore, it should be presumed that when promulgating Ordinance VIII of 1962 the President of Pakistan did not intend that the Regulation could be made applicable by a Provincial Government to districts which were not near the Frontiers of Pakistan. The reasons advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevancy in the consideration of the question that arise. As already, indicate the word used in President's Ordinance VIII of 1962 arc clearly and unambiguously to the, effect that the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, could be applied by the Provincial Government to any part of the Province of West Pakistan and consequently the considerations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any relevancy.

5. No other point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was in any material regard different from those raised in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 994 of 1962, and, therefore, we dismiss this petition without issuing notice to the respon dents. A. H. Petition dismissed in limine.