Cr. Rev Appln. No. D – 105 of 2015

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Before

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi,

Mr. Justice Ghulam Qadir Laghari

1. For order on M.A No. 4735/2015.

2. For order on M.A No. 4736/2015.

3. For Katcha Peshi.

05-11-2015.

Mr. Mr. Ubedullah K. Ghotto, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, learned D.P.G for the State.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Ghulam Qadir Laghari, J. Through instant criminal revision application, the applicant/ complainant has impugned the order dated 24.05.2013, passed by District & Sessions Judge/Anti Terrorism Court, Sukkur, who returned the case to the I.O with directions to re-send the same before the concerned court having jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that impugned order passed by the learned Judge is in contravention of the provisions of law. He has further argued that there is strong evidence in the shape of ocular evidence corroborated by the medical evidence corroborated and circumstantial evidence, available in the case against respondents/accused which clearly brings the case within the purview of Anti Terrorism Act and the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He has further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is arbitrary, capricious and perverse, which has caused miscarriage of justice and same be set aside and case be sent to Anti Terrorism Court for trial.

3. Mr. Zulifqar Ali Jatoi, learned D.P.G has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judge ATC and contended that the order was passed on 24.05.2013, while the applicant has filed this criminal revision on 03.11.2015 i.e. after lapse of more than 30 months, whereas the period for filing the revision is 90 days, hence the instant criminal revision is time barred. From the perusal of F.I.R it shows that the offence does not fall within the purview of Sections 2 and 6 of ATA, 1997. He has further argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or irregularity and order of the learned Judge is valid and legal and the revision application be dismissed.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned D.P.G. and also perused the impugned order and F.I.R.

5. From perusal of F.I.R, it appears that there was enmity between the complainant party and accused over the matrimonial affairs due to enmity with complainant party, accused had committed the murder of the deceased and as per the contents of F.I.R, the offence does not fall within the ambit of Sections 2 and 6 of ATA, 1997. Moreover in the instant case, impugned order was passed on 24.05.2013 while applicant has filed this revision on 03.11.2015 after the lapse of more than 28 months. The conduct of the applicant shows that he is negligently careless and he was sleeping and did not pursue case vigilant. Moreover, the learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to point out any error or irregularity of the material effecting the proceedings in the impugned order. However, according to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, there is no provision of revision.

In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Sabir Roshan V/S The State, reported in 2000 P.Cr.L.J Karachi 1195. In this authority it is held that revisional or inherent jurisdiction of High Court is not available to assail an order passed by Special Court. Sections 25, 31 & 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which are to be read in conjunction with each other, do not permit the order passed by Special Court to be challenged in revision or under inherent jurisdiction of High Court.

Further reliance is placed on the case of The State through Advocate-General Sindh/Public prosecutor, Karachi V/S Shamshur-Rehman alias Shamoo Dakoo alias Khalid, reported in 2000 YLR 902 [Karachi]. In this authority, it is held that no revision was provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for challenging the impugned order of Special Court transferring the case to the Sessions Court and the provisions of Ss. 25, 31 & 32 of the said Act when read in conjunction with each other, did not permit the same. Criminal revision thus was not maintainable and was dismissed in limine accordingly.

Another reliance is placed on the case of THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi versus Dr. Khalid Moin and 3 others, reported as 2000 YLR 2668 [Karachi]. In this authority, it is held that revision against the order passed under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whether maintainable. Sections 435 & 439, Cr.P.C. being repugnant to the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the same could not be invoked for filing a revision petition against an order passed under the said Act. Provisions of Ss.25, 31 & 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 when read in conjunction reflect that the order passed by Special Court cannot be challenged by filing revision. However, in appropriate cases, where some patent illegality or error is pointed out in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, the same can be assailed by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to correct such illegality.

6. In view of above factual and legal position, we do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order, hence, the same does not require any interference of this Court.

7. Accordingly, Instant criminal revision was dismissed in limine along with listed applications vide short order dated 05.11.2015, and above are the reasons for such short order.

Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A