1. The relevant facts of the case are that one Khan Muhammad filed private complaint against the petitioners and two others for trial under sections 16, 10 and 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 7 of 1979 and also under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 148, and 149, P.P.C. learned Trial Court vide judgment, dated 29-10-1996 while convicting Mst. Nusrat Mai and Ashiq, acquitted the petitioners. The above referred conviction was appealed before the Federal Shariat Court who vide its judgment, dated 22-2-1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the case was remanded for retrial. In the light of above said judgment passed by the Honourable Federal Shariat Court, the learned Trial Court has also summoned the petitioners, earlier acquitted vide its judgment, dated 29-10-1996. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the acquittal of the petitioner no appeal had been filed, therefore, at present their trial is abuse of the process of the Court and merits interference under section 561-A of the Cr. P . C .
3. Reliance is placed on PLD 1982 Karachi 567 Pir Jalal Shah v. The State, 1992 PCr.LJ 1273 Muhammad Ishaq v. State and 1991 PCr.LJ 1681 (Muhammad Riaz v. The State).
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has entered appearance on Court's call, has raised the following points:---
(i) Under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan this Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere in the judgment passed by the Federal Shariat Court.
5. (ii)If the petitioners are at all aggrieved by the post remand proceedings initiated against them in the light of the Federal Shariat Court's judgment the remedy from the same Court and the High Court cannot sit upon the judgment passed by the said Court.
6. (iii)That provision under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case and this criminal revision cannot be converted as petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
7. The learned Additional Advocate-General in support of his arguments has placed reliance on PLD 1983 FSC 244, 1984 SCMR 129, PLD 1987 FSC 38 and 1997 SCMR 1136.
8. Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant supports the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate-General, further submits that the petitioner has got the remedy before the Federal Shariat Court and the present revision petition is not competent. He further submits that no order under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be passed against the judgment delivered by the Federal Shariat Court.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Additional Advocate-General.
10. It is an admitted fact that the present petition has been filed seeking clarification of the judgment passed by Federal Shariat Court, dated 22-2-1997. This Court cannot sit as revisional Court upon the judgment passed by the Federal Shariat Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that since they were acquitted by the Trial Court and against their acquittal no appeal was filed, only those accused who were convicted through the judgment, dated 29-10-1996, filed an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court and while accepting the appeal the learned Court has been pleased to remand the case for retrial. The petitioners, acquitted accused who were neither present before the Court nor any appeal had been filed against their acquittal, learned Trial Court has misconstrued the judgment passed by Federal Shariat Court and have wrongly issued the summons to them.
11. Admittedly, the retrial has been ordered in the light of judgment of the Federal Shariat Court and if the petitioners are at all aggrieved they have got the remedy to file an application before the same Court and can seek clarification about the judgment passed by it. This Court has got no jurisdiction to interpret or substitute the findings recorded by the Federal Shariat Court. I am also of the view that this Court cannot interfere while exercising jurisdiction under section 561, Cr.P.C. as the matter relates to the interpretation of the judgment passed by the Federal Shariat Court so the petitioners can seek their remedy before the same forum if so advised. This petition has no force and the same is dismissed.