1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-This is an application under section 439/561-A, Cr. P. C. Read with section 31 of the Drugs Act, 1976 with prayers for premature acquittal under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. And quashment of proceedings pending now before the Drugs Court on the ground that they amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Four applicants who have filed this application are Managing Director, Finance Director, Accounts Director and Quality Control Manager of Messrs Harmone Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd. Respectively. Last named applicant is the warrantor of the said Company, Applicants are being proceeded against as accused persons in a case for offences under sections 23 (1)(a)(5) and 27 (2) (b) of the Drugs Act, 1976 which is pending in the Drug Court of Sind and Baluchistan at Karachi on the basis of complaint instituted on 16th May, 1984.
2. Applicants have pleaded not guilty to the charges in the Trial Court. Applicants with the exception of applicant No, 4 who is Quality Control Manager, have applied for exemption under section 540- A, Cr. P. C. From appearance in the Court and such application is pending in the trial Court since 7th June, 1984 but no final orders have been passed on it as yet. All the applicants have jointly filed two applications under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. On 1-1-1984 and 18-9-1984 which are also lying pending in the trial Court without any final orders having been passed. It is also grievance of the applicants that nearly two years have elapsed but no evidence has been recorded so far and further material available with the prosecution to connect applicants with the commission of crime alleged against them has been assailed on several different grounds in support of which plethora of case law has been cited seeking quashment of proceedings in the trial Court.
3. ' Several important legal points have arisen for consideration in this case. Firstly how this application under section 439/561-A, Cr. P. C. Is competent in the High Court in the light of the fact that case is proceeding before the trial Court. Constituted under a Special Law namely the Drugs Act, 1976 and under section 31 (7) thereof only appeal is competent before a Bench of the High Court consisting of not less than two Judges. Apart from this there is no other provision in the said Drugs Act, 1976 conferring upon the High Court any revisional jurisdiction or permitting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In this context reference can be made to section 31 of the Drugs Act which provides for the constitution of Drug Court to consist of a person, who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court, who shall be the Chairman and two members being persons who in the opinion of the Federal Government are experts in the medical or pharmaceutical fields. After setting up the Drug Court in the same section under subsection (7) Appellate Court also has been specified as stated above to be a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. No other specific provision is available in the Drugs Act conferring upon High Court any other jurisdiction except what is mentioned above. So far question of application of Code of Criminal Procedure to the proceedings under the Drugs Act is concerned, subsection (4) of section 31 envisages that a conferred by the Drug Court shall have all the powers Code of Criminal Procedure on a Court of Session exercising original jurisdiction. Further subsection (6) of the same section envisages that a Drug Court shall, in all matters with respect to which no procedure has been prescribed by this Act, follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of summons cases by the Magistrates. Now even if the Drugs Act, 1976 does not confer upon High Court revisional jurisdiction the same can be invoked under sections 435 and 439, Cr. P.
4. C. Because the High Court. As allowed under section 31 of the said Act, can exercise appellate jurisdiction against the decision of the Drug Cour and from that point of view the Drug Court becomes an "inferior" Court. Legislature on purpose has used word "inferior" in section 435, Cr. P. C.
5. To enable the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction I respect of those Courts also which are not subordinate to it in technical sense. Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Abdul Hafeez v.' The State (1), that the Drug Court has been made subject to Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and in that sense, inferior to the High Court, the latter could exercise revisional jurisdiction against its orders and proceedings as laid down in sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. In other words once having made the Drug Court in the manner judicially inferior to the High Court, there was no necessity of duplicating the matter over again by expressly providing for a revisional jurisdiction of the High Court because the same already inheres in the status and position in which the Drug Court stood to the High Court.
6. ' Now so far the revisional jurisdiction is concerned, it is finally settled as stated above that the High Court is competent to exercise this jurisdiction and can interfere to the extent of correctness, legality or a propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings dending before the trial Court. In other words all the powers which are allowed under sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. Can be exercised by the High Court. Secondly adverting to section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Which is inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it can be said that exercise of that jurisdiction is not expressly barred' under the provisions of Drugs Act, 1976 as such the same is still open to the High Court. In support of the proposition stated above, reference can be made to the case of Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State (2).
7. ' Thirdly it is essential to mention here that since the Drug Court consists of three persons, one of whom is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court and two others are expert in the medical or pharmaceutical field and sometimes even a sitting Judge of High Court is appointed as Chairman of the Drug Court and further when this special law specifically allows appeal to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court, hence revisional jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Are also to be exercised only by Division Bench of the High Court and not by a Single Judge. This position as such is implied in the Drugs Act for the reason that a Bench of two! Judges of the High Court has been made competent to hear appeal from'D decision of the Drug Court. Any other interpretation to allow Single)
(1) P D 1981 SC 352 (2) 1985 SCM R 257 Judge to hear revision or exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In respect of proceedings pending before the Drug Court would cause confusion and such intention could not be attributed to the Legislature. Powers of appeal, revision and inherent jurisdiction go hand in hand and can be exercised at equal footing by the same forum.
8. ' Lastly the main grievance of the applicants appears to be the fact that two applications under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. And one application under section 540 (A), Cr. P. C. Are pending before the Trial Court since a very long time and no final orders have been passed on them. There is also prayer for quashment of proceedings on the ground that they amount to abuse to process of the Court. It is well-settled principle of law that jurisdictions under sections 561-A, 249-A and 265-K, Cr.
9. P. C. Available to the High Court and the trial Courts are co-extensive and concurrent because remedy available under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. As well as under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Is as effective and substantially the same as quashment of proceedings under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In the circumstances, the proper course is to allow first the Trial Court to exercise jurisdiction under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. Or 249-A, Cr. P. C. Whichever is available and if the application is dismissed then resort can be had to the remedy available in the High Court. Since applications under section 265-K, Cr. P. C. Are already pending in the trial Court, we direct trial Court to dispose of these applications as well as applications under section 540 (A), Cr. P. C. Within one month from today and report compliance.
10. ' For the facts and reasons stated above, we allow the application. In the terms stated above. Earlier we had passse d a short order in the Court for reasons to be recorded later, which we have given now as stated above. accordingly.