1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.--- Heard arguments. Applicant Muhammad Akram has called in question an order, dated 16-5-1993 passed by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Nawabshah, dismissing his complaint. The applicant had filed his complaint against the respondents Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 455, 337(2)-A, 337-F(i), 365-A, 147, 148 of P.P.C. Read with section 149 of P.P.C. Said complaint was filed in the Court of Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Nawabshah. Learned Judge recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter dismissed the complaint under the following order:- "The statement of complainant was perused today. The offence however, falls within the prescribed schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Act, 1975. So learned Advocate of complainant is directed to file complaint before proper Court. This complaint is dismissed."
2. ' Hence this revision application.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for the applicant on the maintainability of this application.
4. Learned counsel argued that this Court has power to call in question the impugned order and set aside it. In support he cited the cases of:--
(i) Abdul Khalique v. The State PLD 1990 Kar. 448,
(ii) Shahzad Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1980 Lah. 54,
(iii) Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Chaman Ara PLD 1972 Kar.
5. 164.
6. ' Learned AA.-G. Argued that this Court does not possess powers under section 439 of Cr.P.C. In this matter because the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) is not a Court subordinate to this Court for the purpose of section 439 of Cr.P.C. Learned AA.-G. Cited the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. State PLD 1990 Kar.
250. This view was also shared by Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, counsel for the private contesting respondents.
7. ' In the case of Shahzad Hussain PLD 1980 Lah. 54 a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court took view that the High Court is competent, in exercise of the powers of superintendence, to set aside proceedings instituted without jurisdiction by a subordinate Court and that the High Court has power under Article 203 of the Constitution, to check and prevent dereliction of duty and to stop as well as correct violation of law. It was also observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Was intact and so also revisional powers under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
8. Except revisional powers against judgments. This view was dissented to by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. State PLD 1990 Kar. 250 where it was held that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Or section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Or Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan only if the impugned order is passed by a Court subordinate to the High Court but not by a Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act. This authority is binding on us. In the case of Abdul Rehman PLD 1972 Kar. 164 it was held that Article 102 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 mentions no relief which may be given to a party and it does not even refer to any proceedings, judgment or order. This does not further the case of the applicant. In the case of Abdul Khaliq v. State PLD 1990 Kar. 448 a Full Bench of this Court recognized the legal position that section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Gives inherent power to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and in a hardship case such order of granting desired relief can be passed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction in order to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the cited case, the Full Bench was considering the point, as to whether the appellate Court is competent to hear an application for bail and order suspension of sentence in respect of a person convicted by a Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, in spite of specific bar contained in section 7 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Dealing with the revisional powers of the High Court, the Full Bench observed in the cited case that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred impliedly in respect of the orders passed by a Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities).
9. We follow the D.B. View in the case of Muhammad Ibrahim where it was held that this Court has no power under section 439 of Cr.P.C. To revise any interim of final order passed by a Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act. Consequently, we dismiss this revision application without going into the merits.