' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.--To make special provisions for trial of certain offences in some areas of erstwhile West Pakistan, the then Governor on 12th of June, 1968 promulgated Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance II of 1968). It was extended to certain areas including Quetta and Kalat Division of Baluchistan. Subsection (3) of Section 1 of Ordinance II of 1968 authorised Provincial Government to withdraw its operation from any area, through Notification in Official Gazette, which in the said area would be deemed to have been repealed.
2. On basis of the above-said provision of law on 23rd of June, 1988 vide Notification No,SO (Judi.)
4(5)/88 the Government of Baluchistan withdrew application of the Ordinance II of 1968 from the areas specified in its schedule. However Saving Clause excluded the proceedings pending before any Court or any authority under the provisions of the Ordinance II at the time of issuance of the Notification. Simultaneously the Governor of Baluchistan promulgated Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Amendment Ordinance III of 1988, (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance III of 1988), which is being extended from time to time. In the amended Ordinance instead of 'Commissioner' the Sessions Judges and in place of 'Member Board of Revenue', the High Court were made as appellate and revisional authorities respectively. No saving clause was attached to the Ordinance III of 1988. It may be seen that effect regarding disposal of appeals in pursuance of aforesaid Ordinance was decided by the High Court, on 21st of August, 1988, in Revision No,30 of 1988. It was held that pending appeals and revisions were to be decided by the 'Sessions Judges' and 'High Court'. On the basis of above-said order, the Registrar of this Court issued directions to the concerned Authorities that pending cases before the Deputy Commissioner be also sent to the respective Sessions Judges for trial. On 19th of September, 1988, the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta sent case of petitioner Ghulam Abbas and others (Criminal Revision No,135 of 1988) to Sessions Judge for trial. Similar action was taken against petitioner Ghulam Ali (Criminal Revision No,130 of 1988) by Additional District and Sessions Judge-I Quetta on 29-9-1988.
' Being aggrieved against the above-said actions the petitioners have come in the Revision 'Petitions under Section 24 of Ordinance II of 1968 before this Court.
3. Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate appeared for the petitioners. Mr. Ehsanul Haq, Advocate and Mr. Yakub K. Yousufzai, Advocate-General represented respondent No,2 and the State respectively.
4. The main stand taken by Mr. Basharatullah, learned counsel for the petitioners was that Notification No,SO (Judi) 4(5)/88, dated 23rd June, 1988 which contains Saving Clause completely exempts cases which are pending for adjudication before 'Tribunal' or 'Deputy Commissioner', therefore, petitioners are to be tried under Ordinance II of 1968.
5. Mr. Ehsanul Haq, Advocate for the unofficial respondent contended;
(i) that no appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner was brought before the Sessions Judge, hence the direct Revision Petition before this Court was incompetent. He further added that impugned order was based on the directions of Registrar High Court hence they could not be challenged in Revision Petitions .
' Whereas learned Advocate-General candidly conceded that legal points raised in the Revision Petitions could not be effectively opposed. He further submitted that letter of Registrar has no legal sanctity so far as interpretation of law is concerned. It was contended that though Procedural Law takes retrospective effect, yet in the presence of Saving Clause, operation of Notification would not affect the pending cases. It may be pertinent to observe that Ordinance III of 1988 does not have Saving Clause, therefore, Single Bench of this High Court has already ruled that appeals and Revision Petitions pending before the Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue, shall stand transferred to respective Sessions Judges and the High Court for disposal. The propriety of above- said decision has not been disputed before us. It is quite evident that Notification No,SO(Jud1)4 (5)/88 contains a Proviso whereby proceedings pending before the Specified authorities, under Ordinance II of 1968 shall remain unaffected.
6. Sir. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Advocate also concedes that Saving Clause immunes the operation of the Notification on pending cases. However, he has raised technical objections regarding maintainability of the Revision Petition against the order of Deputy Commissioner. His objection has apparently no force. Section 24 clearly says that Revisional authority may at any stage call for and examine the record of any proceedings pending before or disposed of by appellate Court or Deputy Commissioner or Tribunal. In the presence of the above said provision of law it could hardly be said that this Court is not competent to examine the propriety of the order passed by a Deputy Commissioner, directly specially when question of jurisdiction is involved.
7. The above-said discussions lead us to the conclusion that cases pending before the Deputy Commissioner or any other authorities for trial prior to 23rd June, 1988 are immune from the operation of the Notification No,SO (Judl) 4(5)/88 and are covered by saving clause therefore same are to be dealt with by the Tribunal or Deputy Commissioners in accordance with Ordinance II of 1968 and not by normal criminal Courts.
8. In result of the above-said findings the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 19th August, 1988 in case of Ghulam Abbas and others and, dated 24th September, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II Quetta in case of Ghulam Ali in Revision Petition No,130 of 1988 are set aside. The cases be sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioners for proceeding under the Ordinance II of 1968 for ensuring expeditious disposal according to law.
9. By this order the Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.130 and 135 of 1988 are disposed of.
' As we have disposed of the above-said two Revisions, the Criminal Bail Application No,147 of 1988 which seeks interim relief has become infructuous, which is dismissed accordingly.