IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---A challenge has been made in this petition to the Order of the Federal Government bearing No. F.1(125)/93-MC, dated 25-7-1993, which reads as under:--- "Whereas the Federal Government is of the opinion that the case specified in column (1) of the table below, relating to an offence which is gruesome, brutal and sensational in character should be tried and decided speedily; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1992 (IX of 1992), the Federal Government is pleased to order for the transfer of the said case pending in the Court specified in Column (2) of the able for trial by the Special Court specified in column (3) thereof.
TABLE Particulars of caseCourt where the case is presently pendingSpecial Court
(1) (2) (3)
FIR No.199/93, dated 22-6- 1993, a/s 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Muridke, District SheikhupuraMr. Ilias Akhtar Magistrate First Class, FerozewalaSpecial Court for Speedy Trials (Mr. Justice (Retd.) Gulbaz Khan, Lahore (Sd.)
(AKHTAR FAROOQ), JOINT SECRETARY."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are not gruesome, brutal and sensational in character and, therefore, the same could not have been tried by any Special Court for Speedy Trials. It was argued that the impugned order does not indicate conscious application of mind for forming an opinion that the offences alleged against the petitioner fell within the category of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1992 (IX of 1992).
3. The contention is devoid of any force. Once a notification is issued by the Government under section 5, as in the instant case, it is to be presumed that the opinion was formed by the Federal Government after conscious application of mind on the basis of some material before it, unless otherwise proved by the person challenging it. The same view has been consistently taken in a number of judgments by the Supreme Appellate Court. Reference may be made to Liaqat A.I and 11 others v. The State (1992 SCM R 372). In the instant case it is specifically stated in the notification issued by the Federal Government under section 5(2) of the Act that the offences alleged against the petitioner are gruesome, brutal and sensational in character. No material has been placed on record to indicate to the contrary. Clearly the question whether transfer of the case was made in the public interest is to be decided in the first instance by the Federal Government. In the absence of any material to conclude that the formation of opinion was arbitrary or capricious, presumption of regularity is attached to the impugned order that power under section 5 of the Act has been exercised in accordance with law. Furthermore, the Federal Government has ample power under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Act to assign any case in respect of an offence which has been registered and its challan has not been submitted to the competent Court. Here the record does not show that the challan has so far been submitted before the competent Court. The matter was ending with the Illaqa Magistrate and: therefore, the assignment of the case to the Special Court is also covered by subsection (1) of section 5 of the Act.
Resultantly, there is no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.