P L D 1995 Supreme Court 509 (PLP)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C J.-Both the petitioners named above were put on trial for offences under section 302/307/353/34, P.P.C. in the Court for Speedy Trials, Peshawar and vide judgment dated 6-5-1992 were acquitted for the reason that benefit of doubt was given to them as prosecution failed to prove the charges. It is alleged by the prosecution that four accused persons including the two petitioners were armed with Klashnikovs and pistols and opened fire; ''In consequence of which three persons died including Rustam Khan who failed to return Rs.20,000 to Shamshad Ali. The State filed appeal under. section 13 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991 in the Supreme Appellate Court, Peshawar, which is allowed vide judgment dated 6-6-1992 and in the result order of acquittal is set aside and petitioners have been convicted for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. on three counts and under section 337-A(i)/34, P.P.C. on two counts for causing injuries to Izzat Khan an(I Ummara Khan P.Ws. and sentenced to death with other shorter sentences also awarded.

2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this direct petition in this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the judgment of the . Supreme Appellate Court on the grounds that proceedings undertaken, resulting in connection and sentence, were violative of Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the Constitution being discriminatory in nature and are not sustainable under the law. So far this legal ground is concerned, Sardar M. Ishaque, learned counsel for the complainant present in the Court on caveat, stated that constitutionality of the proceedings under special law in this case was challenged by t petitioners in Writ Petition No.343/95, which was dismissed by the High hurt; against which Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.40/95 was dismissed in this Court. At the initial stage stay was granted but subsequently they said petition was withdrawn. Such withdrawal has attained finality so far challenge to the proceedings on legal grounds is concerned. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed this direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on the same grounds. In any case, it appears beyond doubt that Article 212-13 of the Constitution contemplates complete bar by any other Court including this Court in respect of proceedings of Speedy Trial Courts or Supreme Appellate Court, hence judgment rendered by Supreme Appellate Court, which is composed of a Judge of Supreme Court and two other Judges A of the High Court, is final in nature and is not open to challenge in any other Court including the Supreme Court. In support of the proposition mentioned above, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Zubaida v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore and others 1993 SCMR 1951.

3. Another ground urged by. the learned counsel for the petitioners is that compromise between the parties is in the offing and in that respect heirs of two deceased persons have already compromised and efforts are being made for compromise with heirs of deceased Rustam Khan. This assertion is controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant, who has stated that the petitioners acid their accomplices had come fully prepared to kill Rustam Khan and in firing incidentally other two persons also lost their lives and some other persons were injured, hence legal heirs of deceased Rustam Khan are fully determined not to .go for. any compromise with the petitioners and the assertion for compromise has no foundation so far as the legal heirs of deceased RustanrlGan are concerned. .

4. For the facts and reasons stated above, we are of the view that this petition is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed. M.B.A./M-3078/S . Petition dismissed.