' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This judgment shall dispose of two Constitutional petitions, one bearing W.P. No,14728 of 1994 and the other bearing W.P. No,7002 of 1995, as both these petitions require resolution of the same legal question.
2. The relevant facts of these petitions are that the petitioners in both these cases stood accused, inter alia, of the commission of an offence punishable under section 324 of the P.P.C. And in both these cases the allegation, inter alia, was that the accused-petitioners or at least some of them were armed/had used Klashnikovs in the occurrence in question. In both these cases the cognizance was taken by the learned Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 because as per the provisions of section 4 of the said Act read with the Schedule the said cases were exclusively triable by the said learned Court in view of the fact that Klashnikovs had allegedly been used in the transaction in which the offences punishable under section 324, P.P.C. Had been committed. The petitioners in both these petitions, as has been mentioned above, are amongst the accused persons facing trial, inter alia, on the abovementioned charge before the abovementioned learned trial Court and they have approached this Court claiming that the said learned Special Court was not possessed of jurisdiction to try the respective cases against them. The only point urged in support of these two petitions is that section 324, P.P.C. Is not an offence finding mention in the Schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act of 1975 and thus the said offence was not triable by the said learned Court.
3. Writ Petition No,14728 of 1994 is a notice case while Writ Petition No,7002 of 1995 is still at motion stage which has been admitted by us to regular hearing and is also being disposed of today as a notice case with the consent of the parties.
4. Item (a)(ii) of the Schedule of the said Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act of 1975 reads as under:- "(a) section 302 or section 307, if committed in the course of the same transaction in which an offence---specified in this paragraph or paragraphs (b) and (c) is committed, or in addition to or in combination with such offence."
5. The problem in hand has arisen because the provisions of the Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code were repealed and re-enacted to bring the said provisions in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as directed by the Supreme Court. For the said purpose Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance No,VII of 1990 was promulgated for the first time on September 5, 1990 through section 4 of which Ordinance the then existing provisions of sections 299 to 338 of the P.P.C. Were substituted by the new provisions. As a result of this exercise the old section 307 of the P.P.C. Envisaging the offence of committing an attempt to murder was re-enacted as a substituted section 324 of the said Code. Both these provisions are reproduced below for ready reference:--- SECTION 307 ATTEMPT TO MURDER ' Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and, shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. ATTEMPT BY LIFE-CONVICTS.
SECTION 324 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT QATLI-AMD ' Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused qatl, he would be guilty of qatl-i-amd, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused: ' Provided that, where the punishment for the hurt is Qisas which is not executable, the offender shall be liable to Arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.
(When any person offending under this section is under sentence of transportation for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death).
' It may be mentioned here that the abovementioned amendments made in the Pakistan Penal Code still continue in force on the strength of repeated Ordinances which are being promulgated for the said purpose.
6. It was in these circumstances that the learned counsel for the petitioners in these two petitions vehemently argued that the offence, inter alia, for which the petitioners herein are being tried by the learned Special Court, is under section 324, P.P.C. And the said offence does not find mention in the Schedule above-quoted which Schedule continues to mention the offence under section 307, P.P.C. As one of the offences exclusively triable by the said learned Court, therefore, the trials of the said cases by the said learned trial Court are trials without jurisdiction.
7. This submission proceeds on complete ignorance of the provisions of section 8 of the General Clause Act No,X of 1897 which provides as under:--- "Construction of references to repealed enactments.---(1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.
(2) Omitted by the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, XXVII of 1981."
8. A bare perusal of the above-quoted provisions of section 8 of the General Clauses Act is sufficient to repel the above-noticed contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The provisions of section 307 of the P.P.C. As it existed uptil 1990 were repealed and were reenacted with slight modification as section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, therefore, by virtue of section 8 of the General Clauses Act wherever section 307, P.P.C. Is mentioned in any enactment presently in force the same shall be read as section 324 of the P.P.C. The said provisions of section 8 of the said Act are absolutely clear and hardly call for any interpretation or any authority for the attraction of these provisions to the question in hand in the present case. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reliance is placed on the following judgments and textbooks:---
(1) Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others PLD 1961 SC 119.
(2) Noor Alam Khan through Legal Heirs and others v. Sohbat Khan and others 1991 SCM R 661.
(3) The University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Rehmat Ullah PLD 1982 Lah.
729.
(4) Messrs Capri Cinema v. Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi and 5 others 1985 CLC 1766.
(5) National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 357.
(6) Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press AIR 1954 Cal.
484.
(7) Hindustan Journals Ltd., Proprietor Nav Prabhat Gwalior v. Dinesh Awasthi Ramswaroop Awasthi and another AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 125.
(8) Crawford on Statutory Construction (Section 201, page 348).
(9) Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes 1953 Edition, page 229.
9. Having thus examined the question in issue we find no merit in petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
' There shall, however, be no order as to costs.