2000 P Cr (PLP)

This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 24-7-1999 passed by the Court of Vth Additional sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who forfeited the bail bond executed by the applicant/surety and directed him to deposit the amount of bond viz. 50,000 within fifteen days. The offence, Crime No.2.of 1993 of Police Station Bulri Shah Karim has been registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. read with section 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the trial Court is proceeding with the matter for both these offences.

2. Learned counsel for applicant/surety submitted that since the case under section 302/34, P.P.C. does not relates to an offence under Hudood Laws the revision against the impugned order would be competent before this Court. This argument, in my humble view is wholly misconceived. A Division Bench of this Court has already thrashed this point in the perspective of Constitutional provisions of Articles 203-DD and 203-G and laid down that in such a matte revision shall lie to the Federal Shariat Court. The case has been reported as Sardarullah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 2001.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further attempted to distinguish the case and contended that it is not likely that sentence of Hadd may be awarded in this case, therefore, it should be treated as a case under Pakistan Penal Code. Controverting this plea, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on Falak Sher's case 1996 PCr.LJ 804 wherein it has been held as under:-- "(7) This provision of law makes it clear that if the trial is conducted for an offence under Article 17, the appeal shall lie to the Federal Shariat Court, irrespective of the' fact that ultimately the Court convicts the offender for another offence falling in P.P.C., because the same section also provides that if it appears in evidence "that the offender has committed a different. offence under any other law, he may, if the' Court is competent to try that offence and to award punishment therefore be convicted and punished for that offence. "

4. I fully agree with the learned Additional Advocate-General on this point. However, the principle laid down in Sardarullah's case provides sufficient guidance on this proposition. In the said case the proceedings against the surety were taken in a case under the Offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance, 1979, and when he approached the High Court assailing the order of the trial Court in revision, the petition was returned to him holding that the revision was competent before Federal Shariat Court within the meaning of Article 203-DD of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of High Court was barred as contemplated under Article 203-G. The same principle directly applies to the instant case. Since the offence has been registered under the Law for enforcement of Hudood, the proceedings, original or incidental emanating there from are to be examined in the perspective of the relevant Hudood Law irrespective of the fact that the offence of Qatl-i-Amd punishable under section 382, P.P.C., is beyond the scope of such Hudood Law. In the instant case offence has been registered under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the revision shall, therefore, lie to the Federal Shariat Court.

5. For the foregoing reasons it is directed that the memo. of petition in original be returned to the learned counsel for the applicant for presenting the same before the competent Court. The present proceedings stand disposed of. N.H.Q./G-11/K Order accordingly.