1. ' Facts necessary for decision of this petition are as follows:- ' A case vide F.I.R. No, 2, dated 5-1-1986 was registered at Police Station Narang District Sheikhupura under section 17 Ordinance VI of 1979 and sections 336, 436, 148 and 149, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Ashiq complainant against Waris etc, accused. The challan was prepared on 1740- 1986 and sent up to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura for trial. Vide Notification dated 1510- 1987 the Governor of the Punjab transferred and entrusted the said case for trial by Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No, II, Lahore under section 5(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance No, II of 1987. The trial is now fixed before the said Special Court No, II, Lahore for evidence on 19-11-1988.
2. ' Ashiq Ali a brother of Waris Ali accused has filed the present petition under section 491, Cr.P.C.
3. Contending therein firstly, that the offence under section 17 Ordinance VI of 1979 is tribal by Sessions Court only and that the jurisdiction of other Courts to entertain the case was barred under ARticle 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan. Secondly, that the offence under which Waris Ali detenu and his co-accused have been challenged are not scheduled offences under Act XV of 1987 and finally that the learned trial Judge had adjourned the case for evidence to 19-11-1988. The said adjournment being for more than 2 days makes the detention of Waris Ali detenu illegal.
2. I have considered the contentions on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the record.
4. Initially, the Special Court for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 (Ordinance No_ II of 1987) was promulgated constituting various Special Courts for Speedy Trials of cases. Section 3 of Ordinance II of 1987 provides that 'the provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law for the time being in force'. Subsection (1) of section 5 of the Ordinance laid down that if the Government is of the opinion that a case relating to an offence which has been registered should in the public interest be tried and decided specially, the Government may order that the said case shall be tried by a Special Court. No Schedule of offences was provided in the Ordinance under which all cases relating to an offence could be entrusted to the Special Court for Speedy Trials if it was considered necessary in public interest by the Government. The Ordinance was repealed by Act No, XV of 1987 published in the extraordinary Gazette of Pakistan dated 16-11-1987. This Act now provides a Schedule under section 2(c) specifying the offences under the 'Pakistan Penal Code which could be tried by Special Court for Speedy Trials. The Act No, XV of 1987 was brought into force in January 1988 by the Government of the Punjab. Section 15 of the Act which repealed Ordinance II of 1987 is reproduced below:- "15. REPEAL.--(1) The Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1.987 (II of 1987), is hereby repealed.
(2) The repeal of the aforesaid Ordinance shall not--
(a) affect the previous operation of the aforesaid Ordinance or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the aforesaid Ordinance; or
(c) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence; or
(d) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed.
(3) Notwithstanding the aforesaid repeal, any appointment, notification, order, rule, made or issued under the aforesaid Ordinance shall be deemed to have been made or issued under this Act."
5. A perusal of the above provisions would show that the legal proceedings already pending will continue as if this Act (Act No, XV of 1987) had not been passed.
6. ' It is apparent from the above discussion firstly, that the notification entrusting the present case for trial to Special Court for Speedy Trials No, II A Lahore will continue to have effect under repealing section 15 of the Act and it could not be said that on account of the repeal of the Ordinance the Special Court was left with no jurisdiction to continue with the trial. Secondly, that under the Ordinance II of 1987 all cases under all offences could be tried by Special, Courts. It did not particularize offences triable by Special Courts Thirdly, the Ordinance or the Act was to operate notwithstanding any other law already in force. Article 203-G relied upon by learned counsel only bars jurisdiction of B Courts in respect to any matter within the power and jurisdiction of Federal'
7. Shariat Court. And, fourthly, in the Ordinance reference was made to 'an offence' C which includes offence under Hudood Laws. The learned counsel for the' petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on Muhammad Bashir v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1985 Lah. 853 and Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah v. Imdad Ali 1972 SCMR 173. I have examined these judgments which are not 1) applicable to facts of the present case. Act No, XV of 1987 was not just a procedural law. It was a substantive Act creating Courts of special jurisdiction. The cited judgments are, therefor, of no help to the petitioner.
8. ' The learned counsel drew my attention to the provision of section 8(2) of Act No, XV of 1987 to contend that the adjournment of the case for more than 2 days was illegal as the said provision restricted the adjournment to a maximum period of 2 days. This argument is without any merits.
9. The limit of adjournment of a trial to 2 days will apply after the commencement of the proceedings in the trial. This subsection (2) of section 8 provides that a Special Court shall not adjourn any trial for any purpose, unless such adjournment is, in its opinion, necessary in the interest of justice and no adjournment shall be granted for more than two days. It is admitted at the bar that so far only copies of previous statements etc., under section 265-G, Cr.P.C. Have been supplied to the accused and the trial has not so far commenced. It is to begin on 19-11-1988. The bar to adjourn a trial for more than 2 days will be attracted only after the recording of evidence is taken in hand by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced a funny argument that even if cases are fixed for recording of evidence on different dates then also all the accused should be brought in Court for appearance after every 2 days. This was not the intention of legislature. Thej limit of adjournment for a maximum period of 2 days will come into force only after the trial Court starts recording evidence and not at any previous stage of the case.
10. ' In view of the above discussion the detention of Waris Ali or any of his co-accused cannot be considered to be illegal. This petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.
11. ' The office will send back the complete record of this case to the Special Court for Speedy Trials No, II, Lahore immediately.