1. ' Brief facts of the matter are that on 24-6-1998 applicant filed direct complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Mathelo inter alia stating therein that he resides in village Muhammad Bloch Jalbani near Pak Saudi Fertilizer Factory, Mirpur Mathelo. On 19-6-1998 at about 10-00 a.m. While he was standing outside his house, respondents Nos.1 to 10 namely, Ishtiaq Ahmed Soomro, Madad Ali Golo, Faiz Muhammad Dombki, Munir Ahmed Pirzado, Muhammad Dind Dayo, Gul Khan Pathan.
2. Muhammad Hassan Junejo, Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Allandino Kori and Ashok Kumar who were all WAPDA employees came in a white double cabin and a Suzuki jeep. The respondents asked the applicant about the electric bill and also told him that they will enter into the house of the applicant to check the meter-reading. The applicant asked them to wait and he will show them the bill which was for the current month and that he would deposit its amount before 25th, the due date for payment. On this reply respondent Ishtiaq Ahmed caught complainant by his neck and respondent Madad Ali caught his hair while respondent Faiz Muhammad put pistol on his temple and asked the applicant not to be cleverer. The respondents stated that they had orders from the Government and would enter the house, check the meter and recover money from him. On the protest of the applicant, all the respondents pointed their palms to him in order to disgrace him.
3. They abused and kicked him in abdomen and after laying him on the ground, put dust in his head.
4. They dragged him forcibly in the house where respondent Faiz Muhammad who was armed with pistol and Muhammad Din having gun, pushed him to the wall. They warned him that if he did anything, they will kill him. The other respondents thereafter, damaged the pitchers of the house, threw crockery and over-turned the cots. The respondents slapped Ali Nawaz, step-son of the applicant. On noise and cries Oligomer Jalbani and Noordin Chachar reached there and threatened the respondents but the respondents threatened to kill them also if they intervened.
5. Respondent Allandino Kori took Phillips Colour T.V. And kept it in the pickup. Respondent Munir Pirzada, 6u1 Khan Pathan, Muhammad Hassan Junejo, Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Allandino Kori and Ashok took out boxes of the applicant from the house and in the Courtyard broke the locks with hammers. The accused took out everything from the boxes and it is alleged that respondent Munir Ahmed handed over the ornaments of applicant's wife weighing about 5 Toklas and Rs,10,000 cash to respondent Ishtiaq Soomro who put the above articles into side pocket of shirt. Ishtiaq Soomro ordered Gulkhan Pathan to remove meter and put it in the vehicle who did it accordingly.
6. Thereafter, the respondents left the scene along with the robbed property. Due to fear of deadly weapons the applicant could not fight with the respondents. The applicant approached Police Station Mirpur Mathelo but the police did not record the F.I.R. Therefore, he filed the direct complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Mathelo on 24-6-1998 and finding that offences under sections 394, 395, P.P.C. And section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
7. Ordinance were exclusively tribal by Sessions Court, he sent the said direct complaint to the learned Sessions Judge, Ghotki who transferred it to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo.
8. ' On 27-6-1998 learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded statement of complainant and passed order for holding P.E. And recording statement of P.Ws. By the Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Matelot.
9. The applicant was directed to produce P.Ws. Before Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Mathelo. On 13-7- 1998 statements of P.Ws. Aligoher, Ali Nawaz and Noor din were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and order was passed that the R & P be submitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Matelot. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge remained without Presiding Officer for some time and finally on 2.10-1998 the impugned order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, ,Mirpur Mathelo whereby the direct complaint was ordered to be returned to the applicant for presentation before the First Class Magistrate who had the jurisdiction to try the offences made out from the contents of the complaint. Hence the present revision application.
10. ' Today at the very outset learned A.A.-G. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision before this Court. According to him the provisions of Articles 203-DD and 203-G of the Constitution bar filing of such revision before this Court and the impugned order could be challenged before the Federal Shariat Court. He has supplemented his point by reported authorities of the superior Courts.
11. ' In reply Mr. Abdul Rasheed Kalwar for the applicant submitted that this Court is competent to entertain this application under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C.
12. ' Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafri relied upon the following case-law:--
(i) Liaquat Ali and 2 others v. The State and another PLD 1989 Kar. 481,
(ii) Khurshid v. The State 1990 PCr.0 409, iii) Qudratullah alias Rudhi v. Siddiq Ahmed and 17 others 1991 PCr.0 1520 and
(iv) Sardarullah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 2001.
13. ' For the just decision of this revision it would be pertinent to refer to relevant portion of the impugned order which reads as under:- "From the above act of the accused persons, they appear to have committed an offence punishable under sections 394, 356, 452, 337- F(i), 337-A(i), 506/2, 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The offence of theft liable to Hadd is not made out, as no evidence has led to prove the Nisab for theft liable to Hadd and the offence of 17(3), Offences Against Property (E.O.H.) Ordinance, 1979 is not made out in terms of Nisab as regard to section 6 of the said Ordinance. The offence made out are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions but tribal by the Court of Magistrate of 1st Class. I, therefore, order that no offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is made out from the preliminary enquiry, and the offences made out are under sections 394, 356 and 452, P.P.C. Are equally tribal by the 1st Class Magistrate and rest of the offences are exclusively triable by the Magistrate of the 1st Class. I, therefore, order to return the direct complaint to the complainant, with copy of this order, for presentation before the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class having jurisdiction."
14. ' The applicant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of sections 435 and 439, Cf.P.C. Which are reproduced as follows:-- "435. Power to call for records if inferior Courts.--- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or. Order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior 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.
15. (s).
439. High Court's powers of revision.--- (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of Which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a Contort by section 338, and may-enhance the sentence and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the Case shall be disposed of in manner provided by section 429.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he had an opportunity of being heard either. Personally or by pleader in his own defense.
(3) Where the sentence dealt with under this section has been passed by a Magistrate acting otherwise than under section 34, the Court shall not inflict a greater punishment for the offence which, in the opinion of such Court, the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for such offence by a Magistrate of the First Class.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court:-
(a) to convert a finding of acquittal into one 'of conviction; or
(b) to entertain any proceedings in revision with respect to an order made by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, any convicted person to whom an opportunity has been given under subsection (2) of showing cause why his sentence should not be enhanced shall, in showing cause, be entitled also show cause against conviction."
16. In view of the above quoted sections, this Court has jurisdiction to call for record and proceedings from the subordinate Courts in criminal cases and examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order made by said Court and pass necessary orders but here the complainant instituted his complaint for A offences punishable under section 17/3, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance.
17. ' As observed hereinabove after perusal of the statement recorded during P.E., the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to entertain the complaint for offence under section 17(3) of the Ordinance and he held that the offences under sections 394, 356 and 452, P.P.C. Made out in the case were tribal by a First Class Magistrate. The exclusive jurisdiction of revision in cases falling under Hudood Laws is expressly provided for with the Federal Shariat Court under Articles 203-DD and 203-G of the Constitution.
18. It would be advantageous to quote these Articles:- "203-DD. Provisional 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 to the 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.
(2) In any case the record of which has been called for by the Court, the Court may pass such order as it may deem fit and may enhance the sentence: Provided that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to authorize the Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and no order under this Article shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard in his own defense.
(3) The Court shall have such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by or under any law."
19. 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."
20. ' Now I would like to discuss the case-law referred to by the learned Additional Advocate-General in support of his submissions.
21. ' In the first case, PLD 1989 Kar. 481, Ajmal Mian, C.J. (as his Lordship then was) observed as under:-- "I am inclined to hold that since the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD has been conferred provisional powers, the High Court or any other Court cannot entertain a revision by virtue of express exclusion provided in Article 203-G to the effect that no Court or Tribunal including the Supreme Court and High Court shall entertain any proceedings or exercise any power of jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court..."
22. ' In the second case, 1990 PCr.LJ 409 a celebrated Judge of this Court Qaisar Ahmed Hamidi, J. (as he then was) held that impugned orders in the revision petitions pertained to forfeiture of bail bonds furnished by petitioner in favour of accused persons who had absconded after getting bail and the charge against the accused was for offence of Zina. As such the orders impugned in the revision fell within the scope of words "case decided" used in clause (1) of Article 203-DD. Of the Constitution and were amenable to revisional jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court. It was, therefore, held that the revision petitions before the High Court were not competent and were returned to the petitioner for presentation before Federal Sharia Court. Similar were the observations in the case reported in 1991 PCr.LJ 1520.
23. ' In the last case, 1998 PCr.LJ 2001, wherein the judgment has been delivered by a learned D.B. Of this Court also the identical dictum has been laid down.
24. ' The case-law discussed hereinabove is fully attracted and applicable to the facts of the case in hand and the counsel for applicant has failed to persuade me to take a different view.
25. Under the circumstances this revision is not maintainable before this Court and the same is dismissed in limited. However, applicant is at liberty to file a revision before the Federal Shariat Court if he is so advised.
26. Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.