1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This a petition for special leave from a judgment said to have been delivered by the High Court at Lahore on the 8th of May 1979, dismissing in limine the Writ Petition No. 2445 of 1979, filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that so far the judgment orally announced by the High Court is not ready and its certified copy has not been supplied to him. He has therefore, filed this petition without a copy of the impugned judgment in view of the great urgency in the matter canvassed before us.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that on the 8th of April 1974, the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, sentenced Muhammad Riaz petitioner to death for the double murder of Subedar Kazim Khan and Muhammad Ashraf deceased. The death sentence thus awarded against him was confirmed by the High Court on the 21st of May, 1975. His petition for special leave against the judgment was eventually dismissed by this Court. His mercy petitions for the grant of pardon were also dismissed by the Governor of the Punjab and the President of Pakistan. The petitioner is now waiting for the execution of the death sentence against him fixed for the 16th of May, 1979.
3. According to the petitioner he has since compounded the offence committed by him with the legal heirs of the two deceased in accordance with the tenets of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and thereby the death awarded to him was not liable to be executed. In these circumstances he at first filed a Petition No. 13 of 1979 before the Shariat Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore under Article 204-B of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (as amended) for a declaration to the effect that the provisions of sections 345(7), 381, 430, 401 to 402-B and 544-A of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the compounding, remission and execution of the death sentences and other cognate matters are repugnant to the injunc--tions of Islam as laid in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). On the 28th of April 1979 the Shariat Bench of the High Court admitted the petition to a full hearing and issued notice to the Attorney-General of Pakistan. But at the same time the learned Bench refused to stay the execution of the death sentence awarded to the petitioner till the final disposal of the main petition by it, presumably on the ground that it bad no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief of the kind in the matter.
4. The petitioner was then obliged to move the Lahore High Court at Lahore by Writ Petition No. 2445 of 1979 under Article 199 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents not to make any order or sign any warrant for the execution of the sentence o-- death awarded to him until after the decision of the Shariat Petition No. 13 of 1979 pending before the Shariat Bench of the Lahore High Court. But the writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the 11th of May 1979.
5. Hence this petition for special leave from the judgment.
6. We have beard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length in this petition. In view of the urgency of this matter, we decided to entertain this petition for special leave in the absence of any copy of the impugned judgment produced before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress to contend that the petitioner has since successfully compounded the offence committed by him with the legal heirs of late Subedar Kazim Khan and Muhammad Ashraf deceased to their satisfaction and that therefore, the death sentence awarded to him stood remitted in accordance with the tenets of Islam laid down in the Holy Qur,an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and that in this connection the aforesaid relevant provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code were ultra vires of the Shariat law introduced in the country with the promulgation of the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1979 on the 12th day of Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1399 Hijri corresponding to the 10th day of February 1979. We have carefully considered this argument addressed before us by the learned counsel. We find that by virtue of the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1979 (P. O. 3 of 1979), Chapter 3-A, relating to the constitution and powers of the Shariat Benches of Superior Courts was newly added in Part 7 of the Constitution which came into force on the 12th day of Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1399 Hijri, corresponding to the 10th day of February 1979. According to Article 203-A of the Constitution thus amended the provisions of Chapter 3-A shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. It is further provided in Article 203-B (1) that a High Court may, on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). -In this connection it is further laid down in clause (2) of this Article that if the High Court decides that any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, it shall inter alia set out in its decision -----
(a) the reasons for its holding that opinion ; and
(b) the extent to which such law or provision is so repugnant ; . and "specify the day on which the decision shall take effect". According to clause (3) every decision of the High Court shall be published in the official Gazette. It is further laid down in clause (4) that if any law or provision of law is held by the High Court to be repugnant to the injunction of Islam-
(a) the President in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative list or the Concurrent Legislative List, or the Government in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated in either of those Lists, shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity with the injunctions of Islam ; and
(b) such law or provision shall to the extent to which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to have effect on the day "on which the decision of the High Court take effect".
7. A combined reading of the provisions shows that in the first instance, it is for the High Court, on the original side, to decide that any law o any provision of the law at present in force is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and also to specify in judgment the day on which the decision shall take effect. Once that decision is rendered it devolves upon the President or the Governor of the Province, according as the case may be, to take steps to amend the law so as to bring the same into conformity with the injunctions of Islam and such law shall to the extent to which it is held to be repugnant, shall cease to have effect "on the day on which the decision of the Court takes effect".
8. "Nothing in Article 203-B or Article 203-C shall be deemed to require any proceedings pending in any Court or tribunal immediately before the commencement of this Chapter, or initiated after such commence--ment, to be adjourned or stayed by reason of a petition having been made to a High Court or the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether or not a law or provision of law relevant to the decision of the point in issue to such proceedings is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam ; and such proceedings shall continue, and the point in issue therein shall be decided, in accordance with the law for the time being in force."
9. Evidently the bar contained in this Article is also applicable to the proceedings initiated after the commencement of Chapter 3-A relating to the Shariat Benches of the Superior Courts. In this connection, according to the allegations contained in para. 11 of this petition before us, on or about the 3rd of May, 1979, the petitioner moved the Lahore High Court by Writ Petition No. 2445 of 1979 under Article 199 of the Constitution "for directing the respondents not to make any order or sign any warrant for the execution of the sentence of death till the decision of the Shariat Petition No. 13 of 1979 pending before the Shariat Bench of the Lahore High Court". But under Article 203-D of the Constitution, the Court or the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjourn or stay the proceedings for the execution of the death sentence thus initiated after the commencement of Chapter 3-A of the Constitution as amended on the ground of repugnancy of the impugned provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code against the Injunctions of Islam. In our opinion the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere and it had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings in question in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.