' IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, J.---Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that on the complaint of respondent. No.2 Ghulam Farid, a case F.I.R. No.58, dated 16-3-2006 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner and his sister Mst. Murid Mai/respondent No.3 at P.S. Nawan Shehr, District Khanewal, on the allegation that he committed Zina with Mst. Irshad Mai, daughter of the complainant. The petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid case and thereafter he was released on bail by this Court vide order, dated 11-1- 2007. Respondent No.3 has also been granted bail by the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala. The local police after investigation has submitted challan of the case in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, who after framing charge against the petitioner and his sister is proceeding with the matter and next date of hearing is 18-9-2007. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the F.I.R. As well as the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, may be quashed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R., for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that report of the chemical examiner is in the negative and that sections 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 have been omitted from the statute book by means of the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006, hence section 10 of the Offence, of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 also stands repealed, therefore, the proceedings in the aforementioned case have become infructuous and are liable to be quashed, section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, after the enforcement of the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 does not exist, therefore, no case can be registered under that section nor any charge can be frame as no saving clause is present in the aforesaid Act regarding previously repealed sections.
3. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. Has contended that the occurrence took place on 10-3- 2006 and the F.I.R. Was got registered on 16-3-2006 whereas the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 came into force on 2-12-2006, as such the said Act will not be applicable to the pending cases, which were got registered prior to the Amendment of 2006, as such the proceedings in the aforementioned case have not become infructuous and still exist; that the petitioner has not raised any objection or filed any application at the time of framing of the charge that the same has not been correctly framed nor the petitioner has moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.; that after the enforcement of the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 this petition cannot proceed and the petitioner had alternative remedies available to him but the same had not been availed; that the petitioner could seek amendment of the charge having been wrongly framed and thereafter could also avail the remedy of filing a revision petition and the same has not been availed by the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.A.-G. And perused the record.
5. The ba.i.c moot point in this writ petition is whether the enforcement of the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006, whereby sections 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 have A been omitted, would affect the cases which were got registered/as well as the offences which have been committed priOr to the Amendment of 2006. In the instant case, occurrence took place on 10-3-2006 and the F.I.R. Was got registered on 16-3-2006 much prior to the enforcement of the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 which came into force on 2-12-2006 and the law applicable at the time of taking place of the occurrence as well as at the time of registration of cases will be fully applicable to the instant, case and the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 will not be applicable to the instant case, as is evident from the saving clause given in the Criminal Laws, Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006, i.e. Section 22 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which reads as under:-- "Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to apply to the cases pending before any Court immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, or to offence, committed before such commencement."
' Even Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which says that "No law shall authorize the punishment of a person:--
(a) for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission; or
(b) for an offence by a penalty greater than, or of a kind different from, the penalty prescribed by law for that offence at the time to the offence was committed."
' And section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which says that:-- "Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not:-- ' affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid." fully protects the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
6. In view of the above perspective, no case is made out for quashing of the proceedings in case F.I.R. No.58, dated 16-3-2006 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala.
Therefore, this petition is dismissed.