1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C J.-- The present petition by Muhammad Afzal has been filed in the following circumstances:- ' The petitioner and his brother Anwar Ali claim to be doing furniture manufacturing business in Karachi. It is alleged that, for the purpose of obtaining timber, they have to deal with some businessm en, residing in North Waziristan Area which, admittedly, is a federally administered area.
2. Their grievance is that they have some business disputes with respondents Gul Khan and Ali Marjan Khan, and, for such reason, the said respondents have filed false and malicious complaint against the petitioner, and his brother Anwar Ali for cheating and misappropriation. It is stated before us that the Assistant Political Officer (respondent No, 1) has entertained such complaint and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and Anwar Ali. The said Anwar Ali was, in fact, arrested on 30-9-1984, and it is stated by Mr. S. Ansar Hussain that he has been taken away to North Waziristan. The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, has now a fear that he would also be arrested and taken away in like manner.
3. ' In the petition, it is stated that a petition, bearing No, 412 of 1984, had been filed before the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed in limine, on the process of reasoning, which was adopted by the same High Court, while deciding the case reported in PLD 1981 Pesh.
57. It seems the learned Judges in the Peshawar High Court declined to grant relief, because the matter had emanated from tribal territory, and therefore they had no jurisdiction, and moreso for the reason that even the warrants were to be executed in Karachi, and not within the territorial jurisdiction of Peshawar High Court. Such order of the Peshawar High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by Petition No, 283 of 1984, and it is stated in the petition that the Honourable Supreme Court had granted stay in the matter, but, upon hearing, the Judges perhaps expressed that jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Sind. We are unable to take such bare statement to be correct, because copy of the Supreme Court Order has not been produced.
4. Be that as it may, the present fear of the petitioner is that, like his brother Anwar Ali, he will also be arrested, and taken away to North Waziristan.
5. ' Initially, we asked Mr. S. Ansar Hussain, if this Court had jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of clause (7) of Article 247 of the Constitution. Clause (7) of Article 247 reads as follows:- "(7) Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court shall exercise any jurisdiction under the Constitution in relation to a Tribal Area, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides: ' Provided that nothing in this clause shall affect the jurisdiction which the Supreme Court or a High Court exercised in relation to a Tribal Area immediately before the commencing day."
6. ' On a plain reading of this clause, it would appear that this High Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction in relation to a Tribal Area, unless the Parliament by law provides such jurisdiction. This is again to an extent saved by a proviso, whereby the existing laws, if any, conferring jurisdiction on the High Court, were in existence even now, were saved, so that, in these circumstances, the High Court could exercise jurisdiction. Under the provisions of the main clause and the proviso thereto, it would appear that ouster of jurisdiction was complete, except to the extent that an Act of the Parliament conferred any jurisdiction.- That brings us directly to the point, whether there is an Act of the Parliament, conferring jurisdiction, on this High Court to grant relief 'in relation to a case pending in the Tribal Area. Mr. S. Ansar Hussain has initially invited our attention to the Special Areas (Restoration of Jurisdiction) Order of 1961 (P.O. No, 11 of 1961), which is re-produced at page 336 of PLD 1961 Central Statutes. The relevant provision is contained in Article 2 of this Order, which reads as follows:- "
2. The High Court of West Pakistan shall exercise in relation to the territories comprised in the Special Areas or any part thereof the same jurisdiction as would have been exerciseable by the High Court of West Pakistan on the 14th day of October, 1955, if sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Establishment of West Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 1955, and Article 178 of the Constitution of the 23rd day of March 1956, had not been enacted."
7. ' This provision contemplates that the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan had the power to exercise jurisdiction in relation to territory falling within the Special Areas to the same extent as the High Court of West Pakistan exercised on 14-10-1955, and preserved by Article 178 of the Constitution of 1956. All the Constitutions, whether of 1956, or, of 1962, or, of 1973, unanimously contemplate that a High Court shall have no jurisdiction in relation to cases ,pending in Special Areas, or, Tribal Areas, unless jurisdiction is affirmatively conferred by an Act of Parliament, or, by a Presidential Order. Even Article 2 of the President's Order No, 11 of 1961, preserves that jurisdiction, which had already been vested. Thereafter, to bring the position in law at par with the law as existed in 1961, even the Constitution of 1973 lays nothing more except that such jurisdiction shall be exercised by the High Court, which is conferred by an Act of the Parliament. Mr. S. Ansar Hussain has not been able to show us any affirmative legislation, enabling this Court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to cases pending before the Political Officer in North Waziristan Agency. We have not been impressed by this argument.
8. The next contention of Mr. S. Ansar Hussain is that, in the arrest of Anwar Ali, the provisions of section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been followed. The learned Advocate has expressed a fear that, even if the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, is arrested, there was a likelihood of the provisions of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Being flouted. We would not wish to enter into a factual enquiry, as to whether the provisions of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Were complied with in so far as the arrest of Anwar Ali is concerned. The other reason for not entering into that enquiry is the statement made by Mr. Liaquat Merchant before us that, in case Muhammad Afzal is sought to be arrested, the provisions of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Shall be followed. We have not thought it necessary to re- produce this provision, but we are of the view that the provision gives an adequate protection to persons who are to be arrested in pursuance of process issued by a Political Officer, exercising jurisdiction within a Special Area, or, Tribal Area. We are of the view that this statement of the Deputy Attorney-General completely meets the ends of justice. In these circumstances, we dismiss this petition in limine, but subject to an observation that any Police Officer, seeking the arrest of the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, shall not do so, unless the provisions of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Are complied with.
9. ' The petition stands disposed of.