1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner who is the father of the prosecutrix, seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Shariat Court dated 23rd June, 1983 dismissing as incompetent a criminal appeal filed by him against the acquittal of respondent of charges under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek a reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Riaz Ahmad v. Ajmal Hussain (1). The law laid down therein has been followed by the Federal Shariat Court in holding the appeal of the petitioner as incompetent. He does not question on merits the propriety of the order passed by the Federal Shariat Court and A impugned by him.
3. His contention, however, is that the Federal Shariat Court was possessed of the revisional jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution and in case it held that the appeal was not competent, it should have treated the appeal as a revision and dealt with it as such.
4. ' We do not find anything on the record to suggest that in fact such a request was made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings before the Federal Shariat Court or even otherwise considered by it. If the petitioner wants this contention to be examined he should formally move the Federal
(1) PLO 1983 SC 233 ' Shariat Court in accordance with the law relating to revisional jurisdiction. With these observations, leave to appeal is refused and the .