1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD J.- The petitioner has been granted leave to consider the question whether the atnendmect sought to be introduced in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by item No. 163 of the Schedule to the Law Reforms 0ijv;ance, 1972, should be deemed to have come into effect imme--diately through no late bad been notti6ed by the Provincial Government for the enforcement of the said amendment. He moved an application for the suspension of the order under appeal but this application could not be entertained as the respondent had already been released on bail.
2. The petitioner has now moved an application for interim order for cancellation of bail.
3. Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent has been granted bail on the ground that although more than one year has passed, not much progress has been made in the commitment proceedings. The petitioner has filed uncertified copies of the proceedings before the committing Court and it appears that through no fault of the respondent the commitment proceedings had been adjourned from time to time and the respondent has been kept in jail on that account., After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, wet are satisfied that this is not a fit case in which the bail should bet cancelled by an interim order. The respondent will remain can bail during the pendency of the appeal. The petition is dismissed.