1996 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFFAR and another — Petitioners Versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT NO. 1 (Pb.) FOR SUPPRESSION
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR and another — Petitioners Versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT NO. 1 (Pb.) FOR SUPPRESSION |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFFAR and another — Petitioners Versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT NO. 1 (Pb.) FOR SUPPRESSION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 324 [as substituted by Criminal Law (Third Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 1993), S.7]
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Ss.3, 4 & Sched.
Provision of S.307, P.P.C. and 5.324, P.P.C. as substituted by Criminal Law (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 were para materia
Section 324, P.P.C. (as substituted) being substitution of S.307, P.P.C. in the Schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, no challan could be thrown to assumption of jurisdiction by Special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, which was a procedural law and by virtue of its operation forum had been changed
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
No person has a vested right to choose a particular forum.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.
Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1, a Special Court, constitued under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. In fact, on 1st of July, 1992, a case under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with sections 148 and 149 of the Cr.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Sadar, Jhelum. The challan in this case was submitted in the Court of respondent No.
1. In the first instance, a writ petition was filed in this Court, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. l and a Division Bench of this Court had directed to raise the jurisdictional question before the forum and then to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application challenging the assumption of jurisdiction and the same application was dismissed vide order, dated 21st of November, 1992. In the second round, the present writ petition has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 1st of July, 1992, the case was registered under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 148/149 of the P.P.C. and, therefore, the Special Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, section 324 is not mentioned and thus, the Special Court was acting without jurisdiction. In fact, on 5th October, 1992, the new law (Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990) was promulgated through an Ordinance, and this Ordinance was brought into force in consonance with the Islamic Provisions of the Criminal Law. By virtue of section 7 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, sections 299 to 338 of the P.P.C. were substituted. Without dilating upon the substitution, we will directly come to the relevant provision under which the comparison of section 307, P.P.C. and section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat, Ordinance would show that they are paramateria. It is further pertinent to mention that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code were not repealed. Even if they were repealed, the effect of the General Clauses Act cannot be lost sight of, though they remain intact but without further commenting on the repeal, it is a case of substitution and, therefore, this substitution has to be read in all other relevant laws; hence, by virtue of this 'substitution and by carefully persuing the intention of the legislature, the schedule has also been substituted. Hence, section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, would be a substitution of section 307, P.P.C. in the schedule and no challenge can be thrown to the assumption of A jurisdiction by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Furthermore, it is procedural law and by virtue of its operation, the forum has been changed and admittedly as decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1989 SC 187, nobody has a vested right to choose certain forum. In this view of the matter, this petition having no merits is dismissed. H.B.T./A-822/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.