SHAMSUDDIN Versus GOVERNFHENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, C J.- -This petition is directed against the conviction dated 17-2-1979 recorded by the Summary Military Court, Dadu awarding four months' R.I. and 10 lashes to the petitioner for taking bribe from three shopkeepers for allowing them to keep the shops open in violation of the provisions of Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner was acting as Shops Inspector. It seems that the sentence of lashes was suspended, whereas the sentence of four months' R.I. the petitioner had undergone. The petitioner filed Civil Petition No. D-275 of 1979 to impugned the above conviction but the above petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11-2-1982 as nobody had turned up for the petitioner and the reason for non-appearance given in the present petition is that the Court was not entertaining the petitions against the convictions of the Military Courts. Be that as it may, the petitioner tiled the present petition on 9-1-1989 again impugning the above conviction. ,

2. In support of the above petition Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Summary Military Court did not have jurisdiction in view of the letter dated 22-10-1978 issued by one Syed Muhammad Baqar Naqvi, Brigadier for Martial Law Administrator, inter alia providing that all trap cases involving Rs.100 and above be tried by the Summary Military Court after approval by the D.M.LA. concerned. It has, therefore, been contended by him that the Summary Military Court in question did not have the power to try the petitioner, as the amount involved was Rs.60. On the other hand, Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri, learned Standing Counsel, has invited our attention to M.L.O. 59 and the Notification constituting the Summary Military Courts for the summary trial. The above M.L.O. 59 does not contain any embargo as to the amount of bribe and therefore, in our view the above letter cannot modify the provisions of the M.L.O. or the Notification issued for the trial of such offences. Even otherwise the petitioner has already undergone four months' R.I. The previous petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition which is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H./S-436/K

Petition dismissed.