FALAK SHER, J.- During the course of hearing of Crl Appeal No. 903 of 1992 assailing legality of conviction and sentence awarded by the Judge Special Court (Constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Act 1975, Gujranwala Division vide judgment dated 5.10.1992 emanating out of the case registered vide FIR No. 186 of 10.5.1990 under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 at Police Station Pharianwali District Gujrat alleging recovery of within mentioned armoury and ammunition from the appellant thereof it transpired that the same raiding contingent comprising over four dozen police personnels including 2 ASPs, number of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and other lower subordinates immediately preceding the venture allegedly had recovered from Riaz Hussain respondent Member Zila Council Gujrat's possession one Klashnikov with two magazines, one loaded and 260 live cartridges being carried in a bag by the road-side who subsequently led to the recovery of further two Klashnikovs along with magazines, one loaded and 400 live cartridges packed up in two bags, 150 and 250 each qua which FIRs No. 177 and 178 respectively of the same date were registered at the same police station.
2. Prosecution whereof awaiting trial before the Special Court, pursuant to Zila Council's resolution dated 7.6.1990 was recommended to be withdrawn initially by the then A.D.C. (G) Rafiq Ahmad Awan Officiating District Magistrate Gujrat on 16.6.1990 granting the respondent's application dated 13.6.1990 alleging false involvement due to political affiliations, however the same was recalled by Iqbal Ahmad Bosan, District Magistrate Gujrat on 29.7.1990 on the representation of S.P. Gujrat pursuant to I.G.P's directive being coram non judice.
3. Nevertheless, subsequently, entertaining respondent's fresh application on 23.8.1990 embarking upon novelity of judicial enquiry in the furtherance of Zila Council's resolution commanded Muhammad Ashraf Yousuf MIC to enquire into the matter furnishing report thereof within two days, which was obediently responded tailoring the sought for report dated 26.8.1990 opining it to be a false case placing reliance on the statements of local Lambardar, Chairman Ushr & Zakat Council etc. To the exclusion of the prosecution witnesses, exonerating the respondent of the charges.
4. The District Magistrate equipped therewith getting it endorsed by the District Attorney, recommended withdrawal of the prosecution on 27.8.1990. Adhering thereto Manzur Hussain Bhatti, Special Public Prosecutor prayed for withdrawal of the case which was eventually accorded by Khawaja Mahmud Ahmad, the then Judge Special Court vide the impugned order dated 24.9.1990.
5. Resultantly by virtue of the captioned petition the respondent was called upon to show cause why the same should not be recalled and case be remanded for trial in accordance with law.
6. Which was contested by the learned counsel for the respondent urging the jurisdictional bar envisaged by section 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 and earning right of liberty with the afflux of time the case having been found to be false during the judicial enquiry.
7. To which the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State joined issue submitting that the statutory bar being banked upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is not attracted to the circumstances of the case for the trial Court having acted purely mechanically without application of independent mind.
8. Having heard the arguments canvassed at the . Bar we are not persuaded by the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondent for having been advanced in oblivion of the fact that the offence charged being a scheduled offence within the contemplation of section 2 (b) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act, 1975 by virtue of section 4(1) ibid was exclusively triable by the Judge Special Court constituted thereunder empowered under section 5(1) thereof even to take cognizance of a scheduled offence without the accused being committed to it for trial with no-abstente over-riding powers enshrined in section 10 thereof inter alia qua the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Relevant text whereof for the sake of convenience of reference are reproduced herein below.
4. Jurisdiction of Special Court.-(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the scheduled offences shall be triable exclusively by a Special Court."
"5. Procedure of Special Court.-(l) A Special Court may take cognizance of a scheduled offence without the accused-being committed to it for trial"
"10. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force."
10. In view whereof abdication of the exclusive jurisdiction by the Judge Special Court qua determination of falsity or otherwise of the charge falling aprey to the devious methodology recoursed to by the District Magistrate Gujrat through the mechanism of judicial enquiry having it concluded overnight succumbing to the Zila Council's pressurising resolution tending to extract the respondent's exoneration acting purely mechanically without application of independent mind which has resulted into blatant miscarriage of justice being a patent incurable infirmity as an utter abuse of the Court process.
11. Which can't be countenanced on account of the bar urged making section 7 (1) ibid as the sheetanchor, reading in the following terms: "7. Appeals from sentences imposed by Special Court etc.- (1) A person sentenced by a Special Court shall have a right of appeal to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the sentence has been passed, and the Provincial Government may direct any person appointed by it for the purpose to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal passed by a Special Court; but save as aforesaid and notwithstanding the provision of the Code or any other law for the time being in force or of any thing having the force of law by whatsoever authority made or done, no Court shall have authority to revise such sentence, or to transfer any case from a Special Court or to make any order under section 426 or section 49 or section 498 of the Code, or have any jurisdiction of any kind in respect of any proceedings of a Special Court."
11. For the same having been construed to have not affected the inherent powers of this court contemplated by section 561-A and the Constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction postulated by Article 203 .Of the 1973 Constitution in the precedent law reported as The State V. Syed Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCM R 2192) and Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. V. Khalid Faruq (1991 SCM R 599) (dealing with parametrisation i.e. Section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Court) Ordinance 1984.
12. Consequently the impugned order is set aside being a nullity in the eye of law and the case would be deemed to be pending before the Judge Special Court for adjudication thereof in accordance with law within a month before whom the respondent is directed to appear on 26.6.1994, granting him bail during the interregnum upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.