' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No,1, a Special Court, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. In fact, on 1st of July, 1992, a case under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with sections 148 and 149 of the Cr.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Sadar, Jhelum.
The challan in this case was submitted in the Court of respondent No,
1. In the first instance, a writ petition was filed in this Court, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No,1 and a Division Bench of this Court had directed to raise the jurisdictional question before the forum and then to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application challenging the assumption of jurisdiction and the same application was dismissed vide order, dated 21st of November, 1992. In the second round, the present writ petition has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 1st of July, 1992, the case was registered under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 148/149 of the P.P.C. And, therefore, the Special Court has no jurisdiction .Inasmuch as in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, section 324 is not mentioned and thus, the Special Court was acting without jurisdiction. In fact, on 5th October, 1992, the new law (Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990) was promulgated through an Ordinance, and this Ordinance was brought into force in consonance with the Islamic Provisions of the Criminal Law. By virtue of section 7 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, sections 299 to 338 of the P.P.C. Were substituted. Without dilating upon the substitution, we will directly come to the relevant provision under which the comparison of section 307, P.P.C. And section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance would show that they are parameter. It is further pertinent to mention that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code were not repealed. Even if they were repealed, the effect of the General Clauses Act cannot be lost sight of, though they remain intact but without further commenting on the repeal, it is a case of substitution and, therefore, this substitution has to be read in all other relevant laws; hence, by virtue of this substitution and by carefully perusing the intention of the legislature, the schedule has also been substituted. Hence, section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, would be a substitution of section 307, P.P.C. In the schedule and no challenge can he thrown to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Furthermore, it is procedural law and by virtue of its operation, the forum has been changed and admittedly as decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1989 SC 187, nobody has a vested right to choose certain forum. In this view of the matter, this petition having no merits is dismissed.