1. ' This revision application has been filed against the order dated 23rd January, 1988 of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur whereby he has imposed penalty of Rs,6,000 on applicant/surety, Darya Khan.
2. The facts are that case under section 3/4 Hudood Ordinance is pending against Fakir Hussain who was on bail. He was absent and IlIrd Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bond and directed the applicant to pay Rs,6,000 as fine. The applicant being aggrieved with the above order filed revision application. The same was disposed of as withdrawn in view of Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and it was observed in the order dated 25-5-1988 that revisional jurisdiction lies with the Federal Shariat Court and it was made open to the petitioner to move the Court concerned if so advised. The copies of the documents were also ordered to be returned to him.
3. ' The applicant has again moved another revision application against the same order. It is contended by Mr. Pir Shabroz Ahmed, that in so many cases this Court entertained the revision applications and passed the orders. He has referred to the cases reported in 1988 P Cr.L J 680, 1988 P Cr.L J 1606, 1988 P. Cr.L J 1804 and 1988 P Cr.L J 2031.
4. ' Under Article 203-DD of the Constitution the revisional jurisdiction has been given to the Federal Shariat Court. In case of Khan Badshah v. The State reported in 1986 P Cr.L J 2609 it has been held that revisional powers under Article 203-DD of the Constitution have been conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court and Article 203-G bars the jurisdiction of other Courts including the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Constitution. The petition arising out of Hudood cases the revisional powers exclusively vest in the Federal Shariat Court. In case of Qadeer Akhtar v. The State reported in 1986 P Cr.L J 1334 the same view has been taken.
5. ' Applicant should have gone to the Federal Shariat Court but in spite of specific observations by this Court he has not filed revision but has chosen to file another revision against the same order which in my view amounts to review. In criminal cases there is no provision of review and it has been observed in case of Rahim Jan v. Ahmed Jan and others reported in 1986 P Cr.L J 122 that remedy of review is like a remedy of appeal and same cannot be claimed in absence of an express conferment of such remedy by a Statute. In case of Nazeer Masih v. The State. Reported in 1986 P Cr. L J 1224 it has been observed that section 369 Cr.P.C. Precludes the High Court from reviewing his own order. On this point .1 also refer to the case reported in 1985 P Cr.L J 578 and 1971 SCM R 618.
6. ' Lastly the authorities cited by Mr. Pir Shabroz Ahmed are not relevant as this legal constitutional point appears to have neither been pointed out nor considered in all the above cases. I am of the view that revisional jurisdiction in the cases of Hudood Ordinance exclusively vests with the Federal Shariat Court, in view of Article 203-DD of the Constitution and that in second revision earlier order cannot be reviewed.
7. ' The revision having no merit is dismissed in limine.