1. ' GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J.--Applicant Alim Shah, who is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and is presently posted at Peerabad Police Station, Karachi, has filed this revision application under section 439, Cr.P.C. Challenging the order dated 21-1-1996 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (STA Court No,1) (Mr. Abdul Majeed Bhatti) in Spl. Case No, 375/95 whereby the learned Judge accepted the application under section 169, Cr.P.C. Moved by the prosecution and also released the accused. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and also for direction to the trial Court to proceed with the case and dispose it of in accordance with law.
2. ' Brief background of the matter is as follows: ' Applicant A.S.I., Alim Shah was on patrol duty alongwith Constable Ghaffar in the jurisdiction of Police Station Peerabad on 22-10-1995 when acting on spy information he stopped one auto- rickshaw bearing registration No,D-06675 near the office of Councillor Rahim Ali in Peer Colony in the presence of witnesses Zakir Ullah Jan and Gohar Ali. On personal search of Rickshaw driver Hassan Rehman the present applicant recovered unlicensed .30 bore pistol with magazine containing three live rounds from the fold of his Shalwar. He seized the weapon and the rickshaw alongwith registration documents and brought the culprit at the police station where he lodged F.I.R. No,140/1995 on behalf of the State under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The investigation was taken up by A.S.I., Abdul Sattar Khattack who submitted his report to the S.H.O. Concerned.
3. Then the papers 'were forwarded to the D.S.P. And ultimately the investigation papers were submitted to the SSP for approval for submission of challan. After approval of the SSP the challan was submitted by Sub-Inspector Abdul Sattar Khattack on 5-11-1995 in the Court of the Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities (No,1), Karachi who took cognizance and ordered for registration of the case which was accordingly registered as Special Case No,375/1995 and the accused was remanded to Jail custody. In due course the charge was framed and summons were issued to the witnesses by the trial Court. The record shows that while the matter was pending for recording of evidence the S.S.P., Karachi West ordered that fresh enquiry be held through Inspector Malik Muhammad Nawaz, incharge P.C.A. West. This Police Officer submitted his report on 4-12-1995 under section 169, Cr.P.C. And the same was forwarded by the S.S.P., Karachi West to the trial Court "for perusal and necessary orders". The learned trial Court passed the following orders on 5-12-1995:-- "Since case is already challaned hence case would be decided on merits after recording evidence in the matter."
4. ' After passing of the above order it appears that the S.S.P., Karachi West addressed letter No,SSP/West/Compt/96-192(HD) KYC: dated 2-1-1996 containing same facts about reinvestigation and prayer for release of the accused to the Deputy Secretary (Law Enforcement No,1) for Secretary, Government of Sindh Home Department for necessary action. This letter was sent to trial Court by the Section Officer concerned. His forwarding letter reads as under:-- "No,8/226-S0 (LE-0/95 ' GOVERNMENT OF SINDH HOME DEPARTMENT ' To Karachi dated the 7th January, 1996.
5. ' The Judge, ' Special Court for ' Suppression of Terrorist Activities, ' STA Court No,1, ' Karachi.
6. Subject: REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION OF FALSE CASE U/S 13-D THROUGH THE SSP WEST AGAINST S.H.O., PEERABAD AND A.S.I., ALIM SHAH (ACCUSED HASAN REHMAN S/O ALI KHAN)
7. ' I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and to enclose herewith a copy of SSP (West), Karachi, letter No,SSP/West/Compt/96-192(HD), dated 2-1-1996, for further necessary action.
8. (Sd.) (RAFIQ AHMED SHAIKH), ' SECTION OFFICER (LAW ENFORCEMENT-I) for SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH ' End: As above. HOME DEPARTMENT.
9. ' On receipt of the above letter the Special Public Prosecutor attached to the trial ' Court submitted application dated 8-1-1996 and prayed for fresh orders and the learned trial Court passed the following order on 21-1-1996 which has been impugned in this revision: "Heard SSP also perused reports under section 169, Cr.P.C. And a letter from Home Department.
10. ' It appears that case against the (?) becomes bogus one in view of reinvestigation and report of S.S.P., District. West. Since Police has already released the accused in this case under section 169, Cr.P.C. As such release writ be issued for the release of accused as the accused is in judicial custody."
11. ' Since the point raised in the revision require consideration therefore, it is admitted. We have heard Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sarwar Khan, Assistant Advocate- General and perused the record.
12. The office has raised objection that "in such cases the revision is incompetent". This office objection has no force. The revisional authority of the High Court embodied in sections 435 and 439 of Cr.P.C.
13. Has not been taken away by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)
14. (hereafter referred to as the Act). It is necessary that the ouster of jurisdiction must be expressed in clear and unqualified words. A plain reading of the Act makes it clear that it has not completely ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court in all respects. Judgment/Orders passed by the Special Court are appealable to the High Court. Furthermore it is provided in Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that High Court shall supervise and control all Courts sub- ordinate to it. There is no denial of the fact that Special Courts established under the Act are subordinate to the High Court. The law is also well-settled that in exercise of its powers of superintendence and control conferred by Article 203 of the Constitution the High Court is competent to correct any order passed by the subordinate Courts in violation of law (reference may be made to Shahzad Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1980 Lahore 58 and Habib Bank Limited v. The State and others 1993 SCM R 1853. Therefore in its revisional jurisdiction this Court is competent to summon and examine the record of the trial Court as has been done in this case.
15. ' Now the question arises whether the criminal revision application submitted by the present applicant who is a serving police officer is legally competent. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the applicant had implicated the ,accused in a false case. Therefore, after re- investigation by Inspector Malik Muhammad Nawaz the S.S.P., Karachi West suspended the present applicant and in retaliation he has filed this revision. We find no force in this submission of the learned A.A.-G. It is not always necessary that only an c aggrieved person can invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Department may take any action against the applicant according to law but under sections 435, 436 and 439, Cr.P.C. It is open to any person to move this Court on its revisional side. In Qazi Fazlullah and others v. The State and another PLD 1965 (W.P.) Karachi 105 it was contended, inter alia, by the learned State Counsel that in the criminal revisional application the applicants had no locus standi and, therefore, the said revision application was not maintainable. This contention was repelled and it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that:-- "We are not impressed by the contention of Mr. Haleem, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, that the applicants in this case have no locus standi and that the present revision petition is incompetent. It was pointed out by Mr. Pirzada in this connection that his clients the petitioners are aggrieved persons because they have received summons from the Court of the learned Special Magistrate to appear before him in the preliminary enquiry directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. Besides under sections 435, 436 and 439, Criminal P.C., it is open to any person to move the Court on its revisional side and the High Court can, on its own motion, in the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called by itself or which has been put up for orders or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, proceed to enquire into the matter in order to satisfy itself as to the regularity of any such proceeding. Therefore, even if the petitioners had no locus standi, this Court is still competent to examine the matters in exercise of its revisional powers.
16. (Underlined for sake of emphasis).
17. Now coming to the merits of the case the learned A.A.-G. Frankly conceded that the provision of section 169, Cr.P.C. Were not attracted after the submission of challan. We are of the view that once a legal order dated 5-12-1995 had been passed by the trial Court there was no scope for entertaining a report under section 169, Cr.P.C. And there is no provision in law for allowing the same at that stage. Instead of deciding the case on merits the learned trial Court passed the impugned order ignoring the fact that it was in direct conflict with the earlier order dated 5-12- 1995. In this way he reviewed his own order which is legally unjustified. He should have applied his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case but in a mechanical fashion he agreed withithe suggestion of the Police as was placed before him by the Special Public Prosecutor in the application under section 169, Cr.P.C. The challan was submitted by the Police on 5-11-1995 and the trial Court immediately took cognizance, therefore, passing of the impugned order on subsequent report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Was misconceived and unwarranted by law. From the perusal of record it also appears that while submitting report to Home Department the Police had suppressed the material fact that the report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Had already been rejected by the trial Court, and in this regard lack of proper assistance by the Special Prosecutor also misled the trial Court. It would also be relevant to observe that the manner in which the Home Department, Government of Sindh has addressed the letter (quoted above) alongwith the report of the S.S.P., Karachi West to the learned trial Court for necessary action, prima facie, seems to be an attempt to influence the mind of the Court from outside and therefore it has to be depricated because it militates against the well settled norms for the administration of justice. This Court is constrained to express its strong disapproval against such conduct of the Department concerned and expect that in future such practice shall be avoided.
18. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned order dated 21-1-1996 is declared illegal and accordingly it is set aside. The revision is allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with Special Case No,375/1995 and dispose it of in accordance with law.
19. Revision .