Mst. ZUBAIDA vs SUPREME APPELLATE COURT, LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal murder case, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court, which had declined to grant discretionary relief. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition challenging the transfer and proceedings of a criminal case before a Special Court and Supreme Appellate Court in light of constitutional bars on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that in view of clause (8) of Article 212-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, no court shall exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to proceedings, orders, or sentences passed by a Special Court or Supreme Appellate Court except as provided by the relevant law. The key principle laid down is that the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212-B(8) is absolute regarding proceedings of Special Courts, and objections thereto must be raised before the Special Court itself rather than through constitutional petitions under Article 199.
- Does Article 212-B(8) of the Constitution bar a High Court from entertaining a Constitution petition against the proceedings of a Special Court?
- Where must a party raise objections regarding the transfer of a criminal case to a Special Court for Speedy Trials?
- Whether discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution is available against orders passed by a Supreme Appellate Court constituted under Article 212-B?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 212-B(8), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case under sections 302, 148049, P.P.C. Seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 1-3-1992 whereby a Constitution petition filed by her was dismissed on the groimd that discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution was not to be made available to her.
2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the case of murder got registered at her instance vide FIR No,249 dated 18-5-1989, Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Sahiwal was illegally got transferred from the ordinary Criminal Court to the Court of Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials resulting in the conviction of a few by the Special Court and acquittal of the others. On appeal, the Supreme Appellate Court modified the judgment slightly by its judgment dated 21-10-1991. The grounds in support of the petition were that she was not heard before ordering the transfer of the case.
3. The High Court as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner in instituting the Constitution petition have not taken note of clause (8) of Article 212-B of the Constitution which provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no Court shall exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings before or order or sentence passed by a Special Court or a Supreme Appellate Court constituted under a law referred to in clause (1), except as provided in such law". The expression "any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to any proceedings" is wide enough to include the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the proceedings. The proper course for the petitioner was to have raised whatever objection she had to the proceedings before the Special Court itself.
' No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby refused.