' This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 5-6-1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Quetta whereby request for acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Made by the petitioner for offence under section 13 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was declined.
2. The petitioner is facing trial for charge under section 13--Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Quetta. The material prosecution witnesses have been examined by the Court. The case was fixed for recording 342, Cr.P.C. Statement of the petitioner on 5-6-1985 when the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Was moved on his behalf for his acquittal from the charge but the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected his application on the same day.
3. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged his order before this Court in revision petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Heard the learned counsels Messrs Rafiq-ul-Hassan Siddiqui and Sheikh Ghulam Ahmad, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Amir-ul-Mulk Mengal, Advocate-General for the State.
5. The petitioner is facing trial of offence under section 13 of the Ordinance VII of 1979 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Quetta who has recorded statement of material witnesses which is evident from his order.
6. The revisional powers under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have been conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court. The Article 203-G bars jurisdiction of other Courts including the Supreme Court and the High Courts under the Constitution the petition arising out of the Hudood cases the revisional powers exclusively vest in Federal Shariat Court. The Articles 203-DD and 203-G for convenience sake are reproduced as under:- "203-DD (1).-- The Court may call for and examine the record of any case decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by and as to the regularity of any proceedings of, such Court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and, if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
(2) In any case the record of which has been called for by the Court, the Court may pass such order as it may deem fit and may enhance the sentence: Provided that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to authorise the Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and no order under this Article shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard in his own defence.
(3) The Court shall have such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by or under any law."
203-G.-- Save as provided in Article 203-F, no Court or Tribunal, including the Supreme court and a High Court, shall entertain any proceedings or exercise any power of jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power of jurisdiction of the Court."
' The Article 203-G manifestly bars revisional jurisdiction of this Court in respect of Hudood cases.
Similar question of revisional jurisdiction had arisen before Single Bench of the High Court of Sind (Karachi) in case Muhammad Ilyas v. State NLR 1985 Crl. 306 where the Court has held as under:- "The above Article is to be read with Article 203-G, of the Constitution which lays down that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings or exercise any power in respect of any matter within the power of jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. Article 203-DD when read in the context of Article 203-G would lead to the clear inference that revisional powers in respect of cases relating to Hudood, are exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court."
7. In a similar situation in Criminal Revision No, 24 of 1984 Jafer Khan and another v. State the Division Bench of this Court also relied B upon the above said authority and returned the revision petition to the petitioner for presentation in Federal Shariat Court.
8. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Revision No, 24 of 1984 the learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for C return of the petition for presentation in the Federal Shariat Court.
9. In the above-said criminal revision the Division Bench of this Court has taken view that in Hudood cases Federal Shariat Court is competent for calling and examining the record of any case decided by Criminal Court under any law relating to enforcement of Hudood for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by and as to the regularity of any proceedings of, such Court. The Article 203 excludes jurisdiction of any Court or Tribunal including the Supreme Court and High Court to entertain any proceedings for exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction in of Federal Shariat Court. It was further observed that the proper remedy for the- petitioner was to file a revision petition before the Federal Shariat Court. In view of such legal position the petition may be returned to the petitioner who may approach the Federal Shariat Court if he so desires. The petition is disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.