JUDGMENT All MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.- By this Cr. Revision Application under section 439 Cr.P.C, read with section 561-A Cr.P.C, the three applicants have challenged an order passed by Sessions Judge. Naushehro leroz. Whereby the challan against them was returned to the concerned S.I I.O.
For production of it before the Special Court (STA) having jurisdiction. *
2. Brief facts of the case are that the three applicants Ali Akbar. Mir Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz Were implicated in the crime No. 68/91 of P.S.^Moro . Naushehro Feroz registered on 3.6.1991 on the complaint of Talibuddin Korai. This FIR was registered for an offence under sections 302. 148 and 149, P.P.C, r/w section 13-D Arms Ordinance. The allegations against t1ie three applicants in the said FIR were that they had entered the Otaq of the complainant on 3.6.199I at or about 11,30.a.m. Duly armed w; . Arms along with two unidentified accused (who were later on identified to be khabro alias Ali Ahmed and Ali Hassan) and after kidnapping Ashfaq Ahmed, the nephew of complainant, shot him dead at distance ol about 250 paces from the, Otaq.
Ashfaq Ahmed had resisted to accompany them. A Ali Akbnr am1 others CThe State (Ali Muhammad lialoch, J) challan of this case was put up before the Illaqa Magistrate showing the offence to be under section 302, I48, 149, PPC and 13-D Arms Ordinance. Since these sections were triable by the Court of Sessions, the Illaqa Magistrate sent the challan to the Court .Of Sessions Judge. Naushehre Feroz for trial but the Sessions Judge on receipt of an application by the police for adding section 365-A in the said challan. Transferred the case to the Court of Special Judge (STA) aft<;r having taken cognizance of the same. The Court of Special Judge (STA) on receiving the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, tried the same and passed the judgment convicting the three applicants sentencing them to death, while the two -accused Khabroo alias Ali Ahmed and Ali llassan were acquitted Ali akbar, Mir Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz challenged their conviction in Appeal No. 206/-93 before this Court and their appeal was decided by a D. B. Of this Court on 9.8.1994. The D. B.
Of this Court arrived at a conclusion that the Sessions Judge had illegally transferred the case to the Court of Special Judge (STA) and, therefore, the trial before the Special Court was vitiated and, therefore, the conviction awarded by the Special Court to the applicants was set- aside . In the same order, the D.B. Ordered that the case be remanded back to Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroz to deal with in accordance with law.
3. In Ordinance to the order of D. B. Of this Court the case went back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroza and the Sessions Judge. Naushehro Feroz. Instead of proceeding with the case, passed the impugned ing the challan to the police. In the impugned order, the Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroz held that on considering the police papers., he was of the view that section 365-A PPC was attracted and that, therefore, the Court of Special Judge (STA) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case and. Therefore,'he directed that challan be returned back to the concerned SHO for producing the same before the Special Court, (STA).
4. Before the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroz could be acted upon, and cognizance could be taken by the Special Judge (STA), the applicants have filed this Revision Application challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The case has, therefore, not been sent to the Special Court (STA) and the learned counsel at the bar stated that the papers are still with the police and they are waiting for the result of this Revision. The learnAl counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on Ali Akhar amt others VTllC State (Ali Muhammad Balocli, J)
5. Since this case lias been shuttling between the Courts for a long time and the trial had been completed once, the Sessions Judge should give top priority to the proceedings of this case and decide the same within a period of 6 month . ,since the impugned order is set-aside by-this judgment, the challan if returned back to the SIIO concerned, should be called from him by the Sessions Judge and the proceedings should start immediately.
6. While parting we find it relevant to observe that during the trial if substantial evidence comes 0n record to show the implication of Section 365-A PPC, the charge could be amended, and the Sessions Judge would adopt the legal course to send the case to Special Court (STA) as the section 365-A is exclusively triable by that Court.