SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C J.---As per prosecution case, a large scale misappropriation of Bank Note Sheets of Rs,1,000 and Rs,500 denomination was being carried on in Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Limited with the object of counterfeiting of Pakistan currency notes. In that connection raid was conducted and it was found that a huge quantity of Blank Bank Note Sheets had been misappropriated. Resultantly, F.I.R. Was lodged and investigation was taken in hand. During the investigation, Ninety-four Bank Notes of Rs,1,000 denomination were recovered from the house of the petitioner in P.IA. Staff Colony, Karachi Airport, on 16-5-1991. Petitioner alongwith other co-accused was put on trial for offences in the Court of Special Judge (Central-II), Karachi..
2. Vide order dated 7th November, 1991, which is inadvertently typed as 1994 (see page 142 of the paper book), the Federal Government transferred the case for trial to the Special Court for Speedy Trials as contemplated under section 5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991. The said Special Court convicted the petitioner for offence under section 489-C, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. For five years and fine of Rs,5,000 or in default R.I. For three months. Petitioner filed appeal before the Supreme Appellate Court, Sindh, which is dismissed vide judgment dated 11-8-1993. In fact several appeals were filed by all the convicts including the petitioner and all the appeals were dismissed. Petitioner has served out the sentence and has filed this petition directly in this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court and proceedings in that forum and the trial Court conducted under the special law on the ground that the same were coram non judice for the reason that offence under section 489-C, P.P.C. Is not mentioned in the schedule to the. Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act IX of 1992 (to be referred hereafter as the said Act).
3. It is not in dispute that offence under section 489-C, P.P.C. Is not specifically mentioned in the Schedule in which other offences are mentioned regarding which cognizance can be taken by the Special Court but section 2(c) of the said Act in very unequivocal terms empowers the Federal Government to transfer cases not only of offences which are scheduled but also of offences punishable under any law for the time being in force, which in the opinion of the Government are gruesome, brutal and sensational in character or shocking to public morality or have led to public outrage or created panic or an atmosphere of fear or anxiety amongst the public or a section thereof or which, because of increase in their incidence, need to be tried most speedily. If section 2(c) is read carefully, it would appear that cognizance can be taken for trial in the Speedy Courts of two classes of offences, namely, one class of scheduled offences and the other class in which offences are not scheduled and inbetween the word used is "or" which divides the two classes separately. It appears that the petitioner did not raise objection that section 489-C, P.P.C. Is not a scheduled offence and does not attract qualifications laid down for satisfaction of the Federal Government for transfer of the cases for trial in the Speedy Court on the grounds that offence is gruesome, brutal and sensational in character or shocking to public, morality... ...
4. In support of the contention mentioned above, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment in the case of Muhammad Yaqub v. Government of Balochistan and another PLD 1989 SC
13. In that case it was held that a duty is cast on the Special Court before it takes cognizance to satisfy itself that guidelines exist to give to it the jurisdiction to try the case. It was so held in that case for the reason that the petitioner in that case was booked for murder of Najibullah, a Traffic Sergeant, by firing a pistol shot at him on 21st September, 1987 causing his death. The case was tried by the Sessions Court at Quetta and two prosecution witnesses were examined and cross- examination of the third witness was reserved. Mother of the deceased applied to the Chief Justice of the High Court for transfer of the case to the High Court but the Sessions Court was directed to hear the case from day to day. Meanwhile, the case was transferred by the Provincial Government under section 5(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 for trial before the Speedy Court and that order was challenged in this Court by the Constitution petition. Learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State took up the plea that no prejudice was caused. This Court did not agree and observed that while transferring the case from the Court of competent jurisdiction, there was no consideration of the guidelines which rendered the order, on the face of it, illegal. As against that in the instant case firstly no objection was raised in the Speedy Court or Supreme Appellate Court and secondly petitioner was tried alongwith eleven other persons on charges pertaining to the scheduled offences like section 409, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. Other offences are non-scheduled offences but are attracted under the prerequisites specified in section 2(c) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1992. In this context a short paragraph from the judgment of the Speedy Court (page 139 of the paper book) is reproduced as under:-- ".........The ...The theft of B.B.N. Sheets, printing of fake currency notes and their circulation, cannot be the work of few individuals. This is the work of a well-organised gang consisting of officers/workers of P.S.P.C. And some outsiders. It can be said without hesitation that Pervaiz Fazal, Malik Sikandar, Nabi Sher, Sahib Khan, Tariq Altaf and Hidayatullah are some of the members of this notorious gang, who by their nefarious activities, have been ruining the economy of the country. I therefore, find them guilty of offences under sections 408, 489-A, 489-C and 489-D read with section 109,.
P.P.C. And sentence them to suffer R.I. For seven years under each count and also to pay fine of rupees ten thousand under each count. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo further R.I.
For six months each. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently."
5. In support of interference by this Court with the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Khalil-uz-Zaman v.
Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore, and 4 others PLD 1994 SC 885 which is not helpful to the petitioner for the reason that in that case interference was made for a very valid reason as in that case accused committed murder of his wife leaving behind Wali (daughter), who was direct descendent of offender as such Qatl-i-Amd was not liable to Qisas and was punishable under section 308, P.P.C. And not under section 302, P.P.C. It was held in that case that the Courts had no lawful authority to convict the accused under section 302, P.P.C. Or impose death penalty on him. In such circumstances, this Court set aside the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court and remitted the case to the Court for fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations so made. This was an extraordinary case in which interference was made in very peculiar circumstances and for very valid reasons.
6. Perusal of Article 212-B of the Constitution clearly shows that there is complete bar in respect of proceedings before the Special Courts for Speedy Trials and Supreme Appellate Court under special law so far as interference is concerned by other ordinary Courts including Supreme Court.
In support of the proposition, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Zubaida v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore and others 1993 SCM R 1951.
7. We would like to make it very clear that the Supreme Appellate Court is the final forum as contemplated under the special law and this Court cannot sit in appeal on the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court, nor can interfere with such proceedings in any manner. As a rule, no interference is to be made with judgment and proceedings of the Supreme Appellate Court but as an exception to the rule interference can be made only in extraordinary cases involving question of jurisdictional defect when proceedings in that forum become coram non judice.
8. For the facts and reasons stated above, there are no merits in this petition, which is dismissed as non-maintainable.