' MUHAMMAD JAFER NAIM, J.-The facts of the case briefly are that the alleged incident took place in Nasirabad a locality on the outskirt of Quetta from in the last week of June, 1978. The case was submitted in the Court on 21-9-1978 whereupon the Sessions Judge Quetta framed a charge on 8- 5-1979 in which the offence is said to have been committed in the last week of June, 1978 and the place of occurrence was the house of the appellant situated in Nasirabad Quetta. After the arguments in the case had been heard at length, the counsel of the appellant raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, vis-a-vis, the application of Criminal Law (Special Provisions)
Ordinance H of 1968 to that area. The appellant's counsel and the learned Advocate-General were heard on this point.
2. The counsel of the appellant urged that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge did not extend to the area where the alleged offence was committed. His contention is that Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance of 1968 hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance" is still in force in that area.
His further contention is that the Ordinance was applied in the first instance to the entire Quetta Division except the trible areas but later the Ordinance was withdrawn from the Quetta Municipality and the Cantonment in 1973 and since then Criminal Procedure Code is applicable within the limits of Quetta Municipality and the Cantonment as they were in 1973 and at that time area known as Nasirabad was outside Quetta Municipal limits. He said that the Ordinance still continues to be operative in that area and by its continuance, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is ousted.
3. The learned Advocate-General contended that the Ordinance II of 1968 having been withdrawn from. Quetta Municipality and the Cantonment, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge was extended to the area known as Nasirabad since at the time of the commission of the offence, the area was within the limits of Quetta Municipality. He further urged that Nasirabad was included within the limits of the Quetta Municipality on 25-5-1976 by a notification under section 8 of Baluchistan Local Government Act of 1975 and since Nasirabad was included within the Quetta Municipal limits, the provisions of the Ordinance would cease to be in force in that area and the Sessions Judge would automatically assume jurisdiction in that area.
4. There is no dispute that Nasirabad, was outside Quetta Municipality till notification under Baluchistan Local Government Act of 1975 was made on 25-5-1976. The only question requiring consideration is as to whether by inclusion of Nasirabad, within the Quetta Municipal limits by notification made under section 8 of the Baluchistan Local Government Act of 1975, the provisions of the Ordinance would cease to remain in force there or not.
5. The Criminal Law (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1968 was promulgated by the Government of West Pakistan on 16-1-1968 and was approved by the Provincial Assembly on 12-6-1968. In the original Ordinance published on 16-1-1968 subsection (3) of section 1 gave powers to the Government to extend the operation of the Ordinance to any other area of the Province. The power was withdrawn when the Ordinance was approved by the Provincial Assembly. The Government of West Pakistan promulgated another Ordinance, on 16th September, 1968 whereby another new subsection (3) was added to the Ordinance which authorized the Government to withdraw the operation of the Ordinance from any area, being Ordinance IX of 1968. The new subsection is "(3) Government may by notification in the official Gazette, direct that this Ordinance shall, on such date as may be specified in the notification cease to be in force in any area, shall be deemed to have been repealed."
' In the exercise of powers given under this newly-added subsection (3) the Government of Baluchistan issued Notification No, S.
0. (H) 9-6/72 on 30-4-1972 withdrawing the operation of the Ordinance from Quetta Municipality and the Cantonment. Soon after, the Government of Baluchistan promulgated Ordinance V of 1972 on 22-5-1972 whereby the provisions of the Ordinance were made applicable to Quetta Municipality and Cantonment. Extention to Quetta Municipality and Cantonment Ordinance, 1972, later was converted into Criminal Law (Special Provision) Extension to Quetta Municipality and Cantonment Act, 1972 (IV of 1972). Later on by Criminal Law (Special Provision) Extension to Quetta Municipality and Cantonment Act Repealing Ordinance, 1973 this Act of 1972 was repealed. The repealing Ordinance was also converted into an Act of the Provincial Assembly on 10-10-1973 and since then the position remains unaltered as regards the Quetta Municipality and the Cantonment with respect to the application of the Ordinance.
6. The Provincial Government had withdrawn the operation of the Ordinance from the limits of Quetta Municipality by Notification No, S.
0. (H) 9-6/72 of 30-4-1972 under subsection (3) of section 1 of the main Ordinance as it stood amended by Ordinance IX of 1968. When the extended operation of the Ordinance to Quetta Municipality was withdrawn, it was not done by withdrawal of the notification dated 30th April, 1972 but by an Ordinance, being Ordinance V of 1972 which was later converted into an Act. This Act was repealed with effect from 3-3-1973 by the repealing Ordinance I of 1973.
7. In the year 1976 the Government by notification dated 25-5-1976 under section 8 of Baluchistan Local Government Act, 1975 extebded the limits of the Quetta Municipality so as to include Nasirabad, the place where the place of occurrence is situated. The -contention of the learned Advocate-General that by this notification the provisions of the Ordinance II of 1968 were automatically withdrawn from Nasirabad, his no force. Firstly the Baluchistan Local Government Act of 1975 has been enacted for specific purpose as is shown in the preamble of that Act. Inclusion of Nasirabad under section 8 within Municipal limits is for the specific purpose of carrying on the functions by the Municipal authorities and extending the jurisdiction of the Local Government institution of Quetta Municipality to that area. This extension of the limits of the Quetta Municipality by statutory notification was necessary in order to provide facilities to the residents of that locality, levy taxes and performance of other duties in that area as required under the Local Government Act of 1975. It was not in contemplation of the Government to cease the operation of Ordinance II of 1968 from that area by ifting a notification under section 8 of the Baluchistan Local Government Act, 1975.
8. Once a particular enactment is applied to a particular area, the enactment continues to apply in that area by its own force, A notification under section 8 of the Baluchistan Local Government Act, 1975 would not mean to operate as a withdrawal of the Ordinance from that area. Subsection 3 added to the Criminal Law (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1968 by the amending Ordinance IX of 1968 is still there and a notification could be issued to withdraw the operation of the Ordinance from Nasirabad. Since specific provision is available which is not redundant there could not be any withdrawal by implication specially so by enactment from a different field altogether and issued for another specific purpose.
9. The learned Advocate-General tried to draw an analogy from the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 saying that it was applicable to Nasirabad as well since Nasirabad has been included in the Quetta Municipal Limits. We do not intend to deal with this question in this case since that question is again open to arguments and this is not the proper time and occasion to express any opinion upon that question. The Ordinance II of 1968 is still applicable to the area referred as Nasirabad (Quetta) and it will continue to be in operation in that area unless it is withdrawn by a notification under section 1 (3) of the Ordinance or a special enactment in this behalf and not otherwise. The contention raised by the counsel of the appellant has force and agreeing with him we are of the opinion that the Sessions Judge Quetta had no jurisdiction to try C the offence having been committed in Nasirabad in the last week of June, 1978 and therefore the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The reference is answered in these terms. The Deputy Com missioner Quetta has been directed to initiate proceedings against the accused under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions Ordinance H of 1968 for the offence and to try the case expeditiously.