' AKHTAR HASSAN, J.--A Martial Law Inspection Team lodged the impugned F.I.R. With the police against the present petitioner, alleging that he and his co-accused Muhammad Tehsin had fraudulently got transferred sizable State-land in their favour. He prayed for bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2545/B of 1983, which was dismissed by our brother Ijaz Nisar, J. On the plea of the learned Additional Advocate-General that it was a case of which Martial Law Authorities had already taken cognizance and further that they had decided to get it tried by a Military Court.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner brought Writ Petition No, 3640 of 1983 praying for a declaration that since the matter involved was of civil nature, the respondents Martial Law Authorities or for that matter the S.H.O. Police Station Chuchak, District Okara, had no jurisdiction to interfere. It was disposed of on 1-10-1983 by a Division Bench of this Court upon an assurance of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the respondents shall not interfere in the matter until they were asked for further action by the competent authority.
2. Now he has brought the present writ petition reiterating the same averments and asking for the same declaration that the respondents had no lawful authority to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, and also for bail.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing before us stated at the Bar that it had already been decided that the case shall be tried by a Military Court. According to him, this intention was manifested even in the F.I.R. Itself. The case was initiated by A the Martial Law Authorities and this was the reason why the petitioner's two attempts made earlier in this behalf had failed. For obvious reasons, it was not open to ask for the same relief through a fresh writ petition.
4. The decision of the Martial Law Authorities to take -cognizance of this case and getting it tried by a Military Court is apparent in the F.I.R. Itself. The learned Additional Advocate-General reiterated B the same opinion pointing out that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Article 15(3) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The petitioner having failed twice earlier, could not be allowed to agitate the same point again and again. There is complete C ouster of jurisdiction of this Court to grant either of the two reliefs.
5. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed.