MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs The STATE and 4 others
This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which returned a case to the Investigating Officer for submission before a court of competent jurisdiction, effectively declining to try the matter as an anti-terrorism case. The core legal questions were whether a criminal revision application is maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the offence described in the FIR fell within the ambit of the Act. The Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does not provide for revision against orders passed by a Special Court, as sections 25, 31, and 32 of the Act, when read together, preclude such challenges. Furthermore, the Court found the revision application time-barred due to a significant delay in filing. The principle laid down is that the revisional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, cannot be invoked to challenge orders of a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, though constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 may be available in cases of patent illegality.
- Is a criminal revision application maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be invoked to challenge orders passed by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, permit the challenging of a Special Court's order through revision?
- In what circumstances can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to challenge an order of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Sections 2, 6, 25, 31, 32, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Sections 435, 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
GHULAM QADIR LAGHARI, J.---Through instant criminal revision application, the applicant/complainant has impugned the order dated 24.05.2013, passed by District and 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. Zulfiqar 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 FIR it shows that the offence does not fall within the purview of sections 2 and 6 of A.T.A., 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 FIR.
5. From perusal of FIR, 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 A deceased and as per the contents of FIR, the offence does not fall within the ambit of sections 2 and 6 of A.T.A., 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 affecting 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. The State, reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 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 and 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. 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 sections 25, 31 and 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 v.
Dr. Khalid Mom n 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 and 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 sections 25, 31 and 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.