1995SCMR464 (PLP)

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against order dated 17‑1‑1994, of the Peshawar High Court whereby Writ Petition No. 15 of 1993 filed by them was dismissed. The petitioners alongwith two others are involved in a double murder case registered vide F.I.R. No. 338 of 1992, dated 13‑4‑1992, under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Haripur, District Haripur. After investigation the local police submitted that challan which was pending trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur. It appears that on the move of the complainant side the Federal Government in exercise of the powers under subsection (2) of section 5 of the Special Court for Speedy Trials Act 1992, vide order dated 10‑2‑1993, transferred that case for trial by the Special Court presided over by Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal of the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order through Writ Petition No. 15 of 1993 which was dismissed vide impugned order passed by the Peshawar Court. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the order of the Federal Government transferring the case from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, was devoid of reason. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, had already taken cognizance of the case and had recorded some evidence, it was neither proper nor legal to withdraw the case from that Court and transfer it to Special Court for Speedy Trial. It was further submitted that the learned Judges of the High Court wrongly relied on Mst. Zubaida v. Supreme Appellate Court and others (1993 SCMR 1951) to hold that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was not maintainable. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners have no force. The Federal Government is fully empowered to transfer the case involving commission of offence which is gruesome, brutal and sensational in character for trial by the Special Court for Speedy Trial. As regards the other contention the learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court rightly relied on the dictum laid down in the above‑noted case, wherein the interpretation of the expression "any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings" occurring in clause (8) of Article 212‑B of the Constitution was interpreted to mean, wide enough to include transfer of criminal case from the ordinary Criminal Court to the Special Court for Speedy Trial. It is significant, to point out that the trial proceedings in the Special Court presided over by a Judge of the High Court are still pending. The petitioners may raise whatever objection they have to the proceedings before the Special Court itself. Consequently we find no substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused. A:A./S‑902/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.