1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This is a criminal revision application under section 435/439 read with section 514, Cr.P.C. Directed against an order, dated 12-9-1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hudood Court, Karachi East in a Criminal Case No,1 of 1992 State v. Riaz Khan F.I.R.
2. No,613 of 1991, registered under Article 10(2)/16, Zina (E.H.O.) 1979 of Police Station Quaidabad, Karachi, whereby bail bond of the surety was forfeited and surety was directed to pay a sum of Rs,35,000 for each of the accused hence this revision application.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that applicant Sardarullah stood surety for accused Riaz Khan and Mst.
4. Ghulam Meena in the sums of Rs,35,000 each who subsequently absconded away consequently notice was issued to the surety who appeared in Court on 5-5-1992 and filed an application for grant of time which was allowed to him to produce the accused persons in the Court but he failed and again.The applicant sought time on 13-7-1992 which too was allowed to him but he failed to produce the accused and again the applicant sought time on 18-7-1992 which was also allowed till 8-8-1992 and warrants for arrest of accused were handpd over to him at his request to be executed through S.S.P. Peshawar but he could not produce accused for more than six moths and the Trial Court was satisfied about the breach of bonds executed by the applicant for appearance of the accused, passed impugned order with regard to the forfeiture of the bonds and payment of the penalty amount mentioned in the bail bonds.
5. ' On 4-8-1994 this Court passed the order which runs:- "This revision application under sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C. Arises out of an order, dated 12th September 1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Karachi East forfeiting the bail bond of the applicant and directing him to pay certain suni in case No,1 of 1992 under sections 10 and ,16, Offences Against Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. In our view, the revision application is completely barred and has to be heard by the Federal Shariat Court under the provisions of Article 203-DD of the Constitution but learned counsel is given time to come prepared on this point as he is of the view that the High Court legally revise the orders passed by the Trial Court in cases arising out of Hudood Laws. Adjourned to 15th August, 1994."
6. ' Today none has appeared for the applicant. We have heard Mr. Iqbal Qadri, A.A.-G. For State.
7. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has contended that the present revision application under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
8. Is not competent before this Court in view of the bar contained under the provisions of Article 203(DD)(1) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Article 203(DD)(i) runs:-- "203-DD. Revisional and other jurisdiction of the Court.--- (1) The Court may call for and examine the record of any case decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to4the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of, such Court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and, if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record."
9. ' Article 203(G) runs:-- "203-G. Bar of jurisdiction.--- Save as provided in Article 203-F, no Court or Tribunal including the Supreme Court and a High Court, shall entertain any proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of the Court."
10. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by Hudood Court having criminal jurisdiction in respect of case pending before it which was registered under sections 10 and 16 of Offences Against Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance), 1979. All decision, orders made by any criminal Court under any law relating to enforcement of Hudood in respect of matters in controversy effecting rights of ,parties are revisable by Federal Shariat Court under Article 203(DD) of the Constitution of Pakistan and not by this Court under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. It would not be out of place to state here that Article 203(G) is also barring provision whereunder no Court or Tribunal including Supreme Court and High Court shall entertain any proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of the Court vested with Federal Shariat Court. Proper forum for the applicant under the law was Federal Shariat Court and not under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. Before this Court. This revision petition filed before this Court is also not competent in view of the bar contained in Article 203(G) of the Constitution of Pakistan as Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction in the matter under Article 203(DD). Reference may be made to Khursheed v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 409 wherein learned Judge in Chambers in the similar circumstances held that the revision application challenging the order of forfeiture of bail bond .Amount before this Court was not competent. We find merit in the contention of learned A.A.- ' Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasonings, the present petition is not maintainable before this Court which be returned to the applicant for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction.
11. ' Disposed of