2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Act was initially promulgated on 16-10-1973 for 10 years but later on it was made to be operative for 20 years. Before the lapse of the aforesaid period of 20 years, on 2-10-1993 Ordinance No. XII of 1993 was promulgated, whereunder section 1(3) which prescribed the period for operation of the Act was omitted. The result thereof was that the Act lost its temporary nature and became a permanent law. Ordinance No. XII of 1993, however, was not placed before the Assembly and it lapsed on 1-1-1994. Subsequently, Ordinance I of 1994 was promulgated which repealed section 1(3) of the Original Act and also provided that it would take effect from the date of repeal of Ordinance No. XII of 1993. Although Ordinance 1 of 1994 was published in the official Gazette on 6-1-1994, it was signed by the Governor on 2-1-1994 as is apparent from the Gazette Notification itself. This Ordinance was duly passed by the Punjab Assembly on 27-2-1994 and it was later published in the Gazette on 5-31994 as Act No. I of 1994.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Ordinance No. XII of 1993 lapsed on 1-1-1994 and thereafter Ordinance No. I of 1994 , was promulgated on 6-1-1994 with the result that the amendment brought in force by Ordinance No. XII of 1993 ceased to exist and the law itself became dead elaborating his submission, Learned counsel submits that Ordinance. No. 1 of 1994 will be deemed to have come into operation on 6-1-1994 when it was published in the official' Gazette. Therefore, according to him, the Act as amended by Ordinance No. XII of , 1993 became dead and remained so till 6-1-1994. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that no amendment can be brought in a dead piece of legislation. In support of his submission, learned counsel has cited the following case-law:-- The State v. Muhammad Sharif (PLD 1960 Lahore 236). Government of Punjab v. Zia Ullah Khan and 2 others (1992 SCM R 602) and Ittefaq Foundry v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 Lahore 121).
4. The gist of the law referred to above is that the dead law cannot be brought to life through subsequent amendment. So far as this proposition of law is concerned there is no cavil with the same. However, the real question that arises in the present case is that Ordinance No. I of 1994 having been signed by the Governor on.2-1-1994 can it be said that it did not come into operation immediately and it will be deemed to have come into operation on 6-1-1994 when it was published in the official Gazette. It is now well settled that and Ordinance comes into operation as soon as it is signed by the Governor or the President as the case may be. The publication of the Ordinance in the official Gazette has no nexus with the date on which it is to come into force. Article 89 of the Constitution gives power to the President to promulgate the Ordinance. It does not provide that an Ordinance shall be promulgated on its publication in the official Gazette. Similarly, under Article 128 of the Constitution the Governor of a Province can promulgate the Ordinance without there being any condition that the same has to be published in an official Gazette. Therefore, an Ordinance will stand promulgated and come into force immediately on the signing of the Ordinance by the President or the Governor as the case may be except when it is provided otherwise in the Ordinance itself. In this view of the matter, Ordinance No.1 of 1994 shall be deemed to have come into effect on 2-1-1994 when it was signed by the Governor.
5. Learned counsel then argued that even if the Ordinance validly came into operation on 2-1-1994 it will be deemed to have come into effect at the time when it was actually signed by the Governor.
According to him, since the previous Ordinance lapsed at mid-night between 1st and 2nd of January, 1994, therefore, from zero hour of 2nd January till it was actually signed there was no law in existence which could be amended. This submission of the learned counsel is totally misconceived. Such a question came up for hearing before the Supreme Court in PLD 1966 S.C. 628.
It was held that legislative act shall come into effect from the earliest hour of the day. It means the ordinance will be deemed. To have come into effect from mid-night. Therefore, there was continuity in the old and the new law and the theory that the Act became dead on account of Ordinance No. I of 1994 having been signed on 2-1-1994 is not correct. The upshot of the whole discussion is that when the alleged offence was committed in November, 1994 there was a valid law in the field.
For what has been stated above this Constitutional petition for quashment of the F.I.R. Is dismissed in limine.