The facts leading to this petition are that Inayat Ali petitioner herein had got an F.I.R. Bearing No.433/90 registered at Police Station, Saddar, Kasur for the commission of offences under section 307/324/148/1.49, P.P.C., on the allegation that the present respondents Nos.2 to 9 had waylaid a son of the petitioner, namely, Amjad Ali on 24-7-1990 whereafter, Rafique respondent raised a Lalkara that the said Amjad Ali should be done to death as a result of which instigation, Ijaz, Mushtaq and Jhaja respondents opened fire at the said Amjad Ali with their respective pistols which was followed by infliction of further injuries on the person of the said Amjad Ali by Rafique and Shahid respondents.
2. Almost four months after the registration of the said F.I.R., one Mst. Khurshid Begum, who is, the wife of Inayat Ali petitioner and who did not even stand mentioned as one of the eye-witnesses of the abovementioned occurrence, filed a writ petition in this Court bearing No.5639 of 1990 and finally claimed before me on 17-3-1991 that the abovementioned F.I.R. No.433 of 1990 which had been registered at the instance of her husband, did not contain the exact narration of facts as they had been alleged by her husband before the police and that no mention had been made of the Klashnikovs with which, some of the accused persons were armed at the time of the said occurrence.
3. This petition was dismissed by me in limine on the abovesaid date i.e. 17-3-1991 whereafter, it is now asserted before me through this petition, that Inayat Ali petitioner filed a complaint before a learned Special Court constituted under .The Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act of 1975 on account of the fact that some -of the accused persons were allegedly armed with Klashnikovs and that the matter thus, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the said learned Court.
4. It was further asserted through the present petition that the learned Special Court had taken cognizance of the said case and the trial was thus pending before him and that in the meantime, in pursuance of the F.I.R. Abovementioned, the police had sent up the challan before a learned Magistrate Section 30 at Kasur because neither the said F.I.R. Nor the challan submitted in pursuance thereof, made any mention of any Klashnikovs having been used in the occurrence in question.
5. Contending that it would-be against all norms of justice if two matters arising out the same occurrence and at the instance of the same complainant, were permitted to be tried by two different Courts, the petitioner herein prayed that the abovementioned challan case pending in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, be withdrawn from the said learned Court and be entrusted to the Court of Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, a Special Judge exercising powers under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act of 1975.
6. It is not denied that the learned Special Court constituted under the Act of 1975 is a Court of limited jurisdiction and has power to try only those cases which fall within the Schedule appended to the said Act. It is also not denied that the challan case in question, which contains no allegation of any Klashnikovs or other weapons mentioned in the said Schedule, having been used in the occurrence in question, would not be triable by the learned Special Court in question.
7. In the circumstances, it would neither be possible nor even lawful for this Court to direct trial of such a case by .The learned Special Court and thereby conferring a jurisdiction on the said learned Court with which the same does not stand invested by law.
8. Secondly the said learned Special Court is not a Court envisaged by the provisions of section 526, Cr.P.C. And even on this account, this Court will not have the jurisdiction to order transfer of a trial from a Court of plenary jurisdiction to such a criminal Court.
9. In this view of the matter, this petition under section 526, Cr.P.C. Is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.Q./I-21/L