' The brief facts of the present writ petition are that the present petitioners had moved an earlier Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988, wherein the order impugned was that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Muhammad Aslam Zia, Bahawalpur, whereby the bailable warrants of the petitioners had been issued vide order dated 28-11-1988. The case of the petitioners, therein, was that the preliminary evidence had been recorded by the Reader of the said Court and not by the learned trial Court itself in violation of the mandatory provision of law applicable thereto.
2. In the said Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988, the learned counsel for the State had submitted that if there had been any procedural irregularity, the same can be cured by a direction to the learned trial Court that it should record the evidence of the witnesses afresh and strictly in accordance with the provisions of law applicable thereto. The learned counsel for the petitioners had joined in the same request but had further requested that it should be further directed that the case should be heard by the learned District and Sessions Judge, himself.
3. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State and petitioner respectively as stated above, a direction had been issued that the said case should be tried by the learned District and Sessions Judge, or by a Judge other than the one who was hearing the complaint at that time, and the writ petition was disposed of.
4. The petitioner has again come to this Court through the present writ petition, contending that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bahawalpur, at present dealing with the case, had issued non-bailable warrants of the petitioners on 25-2-1989 without taking into consideration the order of this Court in Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988, dated 21-12-1988. Notice was issued to the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable as there had been no violation of the order of this writ petition, and that in fact it had been complied with and as directed the case was now being heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, instead of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, as was the case previously. It was further contended on behalf of the respondent that under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court was invested with the powers to deal with as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by, and to the irregularity of any proceedings of such Court, relating to the enforcement of Hudood.
' It was further pointed out that as the trial Court is dealing with a case under sections 10(3) and 18 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under sections 452/148, P.P.C., therefore, the Federal Shariat Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the petitioners. In this respect support was sought from Iqbal Hussain v. State PLD 1985 Lah. 65, wherein it was held that the revisional/appellate jurisdiction under the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 vested in the Federal Shariat Court exclusively and that a petition under sections 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was not competent in the High Court in such matters. The second authority relied upon in this respect was Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 344, and herein too, it was held that the Federal Shariat Court had exclusive revisional and appellate jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. THe third authority relied upon was Zaffar Iqbal alias Badru v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 891 which too was to the same effect that the Federal Shariat Court alone has the revisional jurisdiction in cases decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979.
The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No,3 pertain to criminal revision petition and not to a writ petition under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, they are not relevant to the present case.
6. As stated above the present petition arises out of the order dated 21-12-1988 passed in the Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the statement of the learned counsel for the State in the said petition has to form a part of the direction issued by this Court in disposing of the said writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the State and respondent No,3, however, point but that there has been total compliance with the direction of this Court dated 21-12-1988 in Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners but nevertheless it is contended that in the interest of justice the direction should have been implemented by taking into consideration the statement made on behalf of the State in the previous writ petition.
8. In accordance with the time honoured principle and as repeatedly held by the superior Courts, justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. In accordance with this principle, and in the interest of justice, and in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State made in the Writ Petition No, 1102/BWP of 1988 as stated above, it is hereby directed that the learned trial Court shall record the preliminary evidence of the witnesses afresh and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable thereto. Therefore, the impugned orders, dated 28-11-1988 and 2-2-1989 are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.