AMANULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an office objection regarding the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in cases relating to the enforcement of Hudood, referencing the Supreme Court precedent of Sakhi Dost Jan v. Pakistan Narcotic Control Board. The core legal question concerns whether a criminal revision against an order imposing a penalty on a surety for breach of a bail bond in a case involving Hudood laws falls within the exclusive revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court or the High Court. The court held that the matter did not stricto senso pertain to a case decided under Hudood Laws, given that the underlying proceeding involved the imposition of a penalty on a surety for forfeiture of a bail bond rather than a substantive adjudication under Hudood Ordinances. Consequently, the court set aside the office objection and issued notice for the matter to be disposed of on merits, establishing that surety bond penalty matters in such contexts do not automatically attract the specialized revisional jurisdiction meant for direct Hudood adjudications.
- Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive revisional jurisdiction over an order imposing a penalty on a surety for the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case originally connected to Hudood laws?
- Whether a proceeding arising from the forfeiture of a surety bond constitutes a case decided under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purposes of Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 203-DD, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' Office has raised an objection that the Federal Shariat Court has revisional jurisdiction in respect of cases decided by any criminal Court in connection with law relating to Enforcement of Hudood, in the case of Sakhi Dost Jan v. Pakistan Narcotic Control Board 1998 SCM R 1798. The Honourable Supreme Court decided to resolve the matter pertaining to the interpretation of phrase "any case decided by any Criminal Court under any law relating to Enforcement of Hudood" as used under Article 203-DD of the Constitution. The Honourable Supreme Court, after going through the entire case, has come to the conclusion that the proper remedy available to the appellant was to approach the Federal Shariat Court.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, urged further that stricto senso this matter was not pertaining to a case decided under Hudood Laws. The revision has been filed against an order passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur where the surety Amanullah son of Suleman had been imposed penalty of Rs,25,000 since he had stood surety for the accused Ghulam Rasool son of Noor Muhammad. The surety was in the sum of Rs,25,000 and he had undertaken to produce accused before the Court on each and every date. However, the accused jumped the bail whereafter his bail bond was forfeited and N.B.Ws. Were issued.
3. ' Keeping above facts in mind plus the prayer in revision i,e, that the imposition of Rs,25, 000 was Arsh, I set aside the office objection and issue notice so that this matter can be disposed of on merits.