KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.---This criminal revision application is directed against the impugned order , dated 07.09.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III MCTC/II, Sukkur in Special Case No. 01 of 2020, under section 9(c) CNS Act, 1997, whereby he has transferred the R&Ps to the Court of District Khairpur on the point of jurisdiction raised by the appellant in that case. The applicant preferred this revision application and prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and direct respondent No. 1 to proceed with the case.
2. Briefly , facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.12.2019, the complainant received spy information from his superiors about the transaction of narcotics at the house of renowned drug dealer Samiullah Memon, located at Mohalla Kazi Therhi, District Khairpur . On receiving such information, the complainant left the police station along with his subordinate staff under entry No. 07 at 1330 hours. At 1400 hours, he reached at the pointed out place and arrested the accused and recovered a total of 8800 grams of charas. The accused was brought to the police station where FIR was lodged against him. After a charge was framed against the accused, the parties were invited to adduce their evidence. The prosecution witnesses got their evidence recorded and produced several documents in evidence, whereafter prosecution side was closed. At the same stage, the point of jurisdiction was raised which was eventually decided, vide impugned order . Hence, this revision application.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor A.N.F has argued that the order passed by learned trial Court concerning the point of jurisdiction is illegal; that on 11th August, 2016, Ministry of Law and Justice of the Government of Pakistan issued notification No. F. 28(17)/2014-A.V in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Sindh High Court, wherein courts of Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st, 2nd and 3rd were assigned powers to try all offences under CNS Act 1997 registered by Police Station ANF Sukkur; that on the basis of said notification, the case of the accused was to be tried at Sukkur and the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC-II Sukkur was fully competent to try the case; that notification dated 11.08.2020 was issued for investing some new courts with the power to try narcotics cases and it was in no way overriding the earlier notification; that the challan was submitted at Sukkur , the charge was framed and evidence was recorded before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC-II Sukkur , there fore the impugned order passed at such a later date after all the proceedings was illegal and against the law .
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Special Prosecutor A.N.F and have perused the record available before us..
5. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court would like to discuss the applicability of section 177, Cr.P.C. in the present case. It is a matter of record that the place of incident is shown to be in the District Khairpur whereas the FIR for the same was lodged at the Police Station of Anti-Narcotics Force Sukkur . To resolve the controversy as to whether the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/ MCTC-II Sukkur had jurisdiction to try the case or not, it would be expedient to reproduce the concerned section, i.e. section 177, Cr.P.C. for ready reference:- "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired in and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed ".
(emphasis supplied)
6. An analogical explanation of the above will help better in understanding the principle enunciated in section 177, Cr.P.C. If a person committed a crime in place X and was arrested by the police station of place Y, the FIR was also lodged in place Y, he would still be tried by the Court having local jurisdiction over place X as the wording of the legislature when handing down the abov e section is very clear . No exceptions have been provided to the above that would be applicable in the present case by the legislature. The use of the expression "be inquired in and tried by" further provides no exceptions to the case as had the legislature planned to provide any exceptions or not made the said section mandatory , the word "may" would have been used which is not the case. In the present case, the crime was committed in District A Khairpur , wherefrom the accused was arrested as well. Regardless of the place where the FIR was lodged, it would not have any consequence upon the Court where the case would be tried or have any other effect. The decision taken by the learned trial Court in transferring the case and R&Ps to the Court having proper jurisdiction was appropriate and does not suffer from any infirmity , therefore does not call for any interference.
7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this Court being of the opinion that the order passed by learned trial Court was just and merited no interference, dismissed the captioned revision application in limine along with pending applications and upheld the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 vide short order dated 30.09.2020.
These are the reasons for the same