' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-8- 2002, passed by the learned Administrative. Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts, Karachi, by which the learned Judge had convicted the appellant under section 19(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1997") as a contempt of Court and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was investigating Crime No,106 of 2001, registered at Super Market Police Station, Liaquatabad, Karachi, under sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with sections 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)(m) and 7(b) of Act, 1997, on 11- 10-2001 at 11-50 p.m. The investigation was not completed within time, as provided under section 19(1) of the Act, 1997, therefore, the appellant moved the Court for extension of time, which was granted from time to time. Again on 15-8-2002, another application was moved for extension of time but the same was dismissed and simultaneously the appellant was convicted as he was found guilty of not submitting challan within time which fell within the ambit of contempt of Court in terms of subsection (2) of section 19 of Act, 1997, under the impugned judgment.
3. The appellant was dissatisfied with the said judgment, therefore, he has preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard the Advocate for the appellant, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case and law involved in the matter very carefully.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that on 15-8-2002, the appellant had moved an application for extension of time to further investigate the case but the said application was dismissed and the appellant was convicted then and there without issuing any show-cause notice or framing charge against him, recording evidence or statement of appellant. He has further argued that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not warranted by law and it was against the principle of natural justice, therefore, he has prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has admitted that before convicting the appellant no show-cause notice was issued to him, or charge was framed or evidence or his statement was recorded. But he has argued that for trying such offence any procedure can be adopted as no procedure has been provided under the Act, 1997, for trial of such offences. He has supported the impugned judgment.
7. We have given due consideration to the arguments and perused the relevant provisions of Act, 1997. A perusal of the said Act reveals that two procedures have been provided for trial of cases, i,e, regular procedure as provided under Chapter XXII-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and summary procedure as provided under section 21-K of Act, 1997. Under section 19(14) of Act, 1997, the Anti-Terrorism Court (hereinafter referred to as the "ATC") has been empowered with the powers of Court of Session for the purpose of trial of cases and the procedure which is adopted by the Court of Session for trial of cases is to be adopted by the ATC for the trial of all offences but this has been made subject to the other provisions of Act, 1997. The said provision reads as under:-- "19. Procedure and powers of Anti-Terrorism Court.--- (1)
(2) ............................................................................
(3) .......................
(4) ............................................................................
(5) ................................................................
(6) .................................................
(7) ............................................................................
(8) ............................................................................
(9) ............................................................................
(10) ............................................................................
(11) ............................................................................
(12) ...............................................
(13) ............................................................................
(14) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, an Anti-Terrorism Court shall, for the purpose of trial' of any offence, have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall try such offence as if it were a Court of Session as far as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code for trial before a Court of Session."
8. Under section 32 of the Act, 1997, the provisions of Cr.P.C. Are B applicable before the ATC, if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act. The said section reads as under:-- "32. Overriding effect of Act.--- (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law but, save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply to the proceedings before a Anti-Terrorism Court; and for the purpose of the said provisions of the Code, a Anti-Terrorism Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in subsection (1), the provisions of section 350 of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a Anti-Terrorism Court, and for this purpose any reference in those provisions to a Magistrate shall be construed as a reference to an Anti-Terrorism Court."
9. The procedure prescribed for the trial of cases before the Court of Session is mentioned in Chapter XXII-A of Cr.P.C. As such the provisions of Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C. Are applicable before ATC.
But, if any provision of the said chapter is in conflict with the Act, 1997, then that provision is to be excluded. The above procedure is being adopted by the ATC for the trial of cases which is the regular procedure.
10. Under section 21-K of Act, 1997. Another procedure, in the shape of summary trial has been provided for. The trial of offences which are punishable for not more than six months with or without fine. The said section reads asunder:-- "21K. Offence triable by way of summary procedure.-- ' All offences under this Act punishable with imprisonment for a term of not more than six months with or without fine shall be tried by way of summary procedure."
11. As such all offences which are punishable up to six months with or without fine are to be tried through summary procedure.
12. It is pointed out that section 19(14) of Act, 1997 under which the provisions of Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C. Have been made applicable for the trial of offences, is subject to the other provisions of Act, 1997. As a separate procedure has been provided for the trial of offences punishable up to six months with or without fine, therefore, the procedure of Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable to the cases referred to in section 21-K of Act, 1997.
13. It transpires from the perusal of Act, 1997, that no detailed procedure has been provided thereunder, to be adopted by the ATC for the trial through summary procedure. By virtue of section 32 of Act, 1997, the provisions of Cr.P.C. Are applicable, if they are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of Act, 1997. A perusal of Cr.P.C. Shows that for summary trial a separate procedure has been provided which is contained in Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to point out that for certain class of offences, to be tried through summary procedure, the provisions of Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C.
Are applicable before the Court of Session as provided under section 476, Cr.P.C. The ATC being the Court of Session can also invoke the provisions of Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C. For the trial of class of cases mentioned in section 21-K of Act, 1997. As such the said procedure is to be adopted for the trial of offences which are falling under section 21-K of Act, 1997. If any provision of the said Chapter is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act, 1997, then that provision is to be excluded. It further transpires that sections 262 to 265 of Chapter XXII, Cr.P.C. Are not inconsistent with any provisions of the Act, 1997, therefore, they are applicable before the ATC.
14. The offence punishable under section 19(2) read with section 37 of Act, 1997, is punishable up to six months and fine, therefore, provisions of section 21-K of Act, 1997, are attracted as such the said offence is to be tried through the summary procedure as provided under Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C.
15. In the present case no such procedure has been adopted, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded under the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings and trial in accordance with law.
' The appeal is allowed in the above terms.