1985 P Cr (PLP)
JAFFAR KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Quetta |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Actg. C J and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, J |
| Parties | JAFFAR KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Quetta bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Actg. C J and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (JAFFAR KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharaullah for petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 9th July 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
‑S. 12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 203‑DD, 203‑G and 203‑F‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 439 & 193‑‑Revision against order under Hudood Ordinance‑‑Revision against order of Additional Session Judge deciding question whether a direct challan could have been entertained by him held, would lie before Federal Shrariat Court in View of Art 203‑DD read with Arts. 203-G & 203-F of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) revision petition returned for presentation to proper forum. Ejaz Yousaf Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, Actg. C. J.
This revision is directed against an order date 9th July 1984 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge Quetta in Sessions Case No. 16-A/83 under section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 in respect ,of F.I.R, .No. 17 of 1982 police station Sadar loralai , over ruled the objection of the petitioner as to the taking of cognizance on the ground that the challan should have been submitted before Magistrate under Judge as the amendment made under Ordinance 20 of 1980 was not was not extended to the tribal areas. In this regard, it may be pertinent to the tribal areas. In this regard it may be pertinent to observe that Articles 203-DD of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 provides that the Federal Shariat Court may call for and examine the record of any case decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness legality or, propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Court and may when calling for such record, direct that the execution; of any sentence be suspended and if the accused is in confinement that he be, released on tail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record The above Article is to be, read with Article 203‑G, ,which provides that save as provided in Article 203-F, no Court or: Tribunal, including the Supreme Court and a High Court shall entertain any: .proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of the Court Federal. Shariat Court It is evident, that the proper remedy, for the petitioner is to file revision before the Federal Shariat Court. In this behalf reference may be made to the cave of Muhammad Ilyas v. The State reported in N L R 1985 Criminal; 306, in which a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court declined to entertain a revision in view of the above Articles 203‑DD and 203‑G of the Constitution of Islami Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. We are also inclined to hold that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the federal Shariat. Court as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has decided the question whether a direct challan could have been entertained by him which goes to the root of the matter. This revision petitioner may be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Federal Shariat Court. M.Y.H. Petition returned.