NAS1R ASLAM ZAHID, J.--This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Has been filed by the applicant for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Foreign Exchange Tribunal on the grounds stated in the Application. Although it is a matter which is to be decided by a single Judge of this Court, on a point of jurisdiction raised by the learned Counsel for the State Bank of Pakistan on the basis of a reported judgment of the late Chief Justice Mr. Justice Tufailally A. Rehman in the case of Fida Muhammad Paracha (who is incidentally also the applicant in the present case) v. The State (1972 PCrLJ 951) that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application was not competent, the matter was referred for decision to a larger Bench comprising two Judges of this Court for deciding this question of jurisdiction. It is in those circumstances that this reference has come before us for decision.
2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo for the applicant, Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan for respondent No. I and Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate.General for the State. In Fida Muhammad v. State. In the late Chief Justice sitting singly had decided, in view of the provisions of section 23-A of the foreign. Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, specially subsection (7) thereof, that the High Court had no power to interfere in revision with any order of the Foreign Exchange Tribunal.
As observed earlier, it was on the basis of this judgment that the point was raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that as a Revision was not competent, an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
Would also be incompetent before this Court in respect of proceedings pending before the Foreign Exchange Tribunal. Mr. Junejo has pointed out that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Hafees v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 352) while dealing with the provisions of a similar nature but with reference to the Drug Court appointed under the Drugs Act, 1976, where also only an appeal was provided to the High Court from a decision of the Drug Court and there were no provisions for filing any revision to the High Court, it was held that the Drug Court being subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, was ac inferior Court, whose orders and proceedings are revisable by the High Court, under section 435, Cr. P. C. And the use of the words `final' in section 39 of the Drugs Act, 1976 does not detract from this position of law. We have perused the respective provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976 as well as the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 relating to the finality being attached to the order passed by the Drug Court; Foreign Exchange Tribunal and only an appeal being specifically provided to the High Court against their orders. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the aforesaid case reported in NLR 1981 Criminal 464, has very clearly clarified the law, as observed earlier, that in spite of the provisions of the Drugs Act and the finality attaching to the orders of the Drug Court under section 39 and only an appeal being provided to the High Court, the High Court still retains the revisional powers under section 435/439, Cr. P. C. All the learned counsel including Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, at whose instance this point was referred to the Division Beach, agree that in view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, the decision of the late Chief Justice reported in 1972 P. Cr. L. J. 951 stands overruled and that under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, the Foreign Exchange Tribunal is to be treated as an inferior Criminal Court subordinate to the High Court and although no revision is specifically provided and although by subsection (7) of section 23-A of the 1947 Act, finality attaches to the orders passed by the Tribunal 'under the 1947 Act, the High Court still retains the powers of revision under section 435/439, Cr. P. C.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant had also referred to a case decided by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court reported in Works Manager v. Hashmat (AIR 1946 Lah. 316) in which a similar point had arisen but with reference to a decision by die Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, where an appeal was provided to the High Court under section 17 of the Act and an argument was raised that a Revision under section 115, C. P. C. Was not competent. This contention was repelled by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court. Although the aforesaid Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court relates to the powers under section 115 under the Code of Civil Procedure, the ratio of that judgment supports the contention of learned counsel for the applicant.
4. In the circumstances, we decide that powers of revision under section 435/439, Cr. P. C. Are available to the High Court against theorders and proceedings passed taken by the Foreign Exchange Tribunal under the 1-orcign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and as a corollary, an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Is also competent.
This case will now be posted for hearing in the normal course in accordance with roster sitting before a learned Single Judge.