JAFFAR KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE

' AJMAL MIAN, Actg. C.J.-- This revision is directed against an order, dated 9th July, 1984, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta in Sessions Case No, 16-A/83 under section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Iludood) Ordinance, 1979 in respect of F.I.R. No, 17 of 1982 Police Station, Sadar Loralai, over-ruled the objection of the petitioner as to the taking of cognizance on the ground that the challan should have been -submitted before Magistrate under section 193, Cr.P.C. And not directly to the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the amendment made under Ordinance 20 of 1980 was not extended to the tribal areas. In this regard, it may be pertinent to observe that Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides that the Federal Shariat Court may call for and examine the record of any case decided by any criminal Court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of, such Court and may, when calling for such record direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

The above Article is to be read with Article 203-G, which provides that save as provided in Article 203-F, no Court or Tribunal, including the Supreme Court and a High Court, shall 'entertain any proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of the Court i,e, Federal Shariat Court. It is evident that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file revision before the Federal Shariat Court. In this behalf reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. The State reported in NLR 1985 Criminal, 306, in which a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court declined to entertain a revision in view of the above Articles 203-DD and 203-G of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. We are also inclined to hold that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Federal Shariat Court as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has decided the question whether a direct challan could have been entertained by him which goes to the root of the matter.

' This revision petition may be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Federal Shariat Court.