Pakistan Case LawNATHEY KHAN Versus KHANU alias KHAN and others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a private complaint before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed specifically under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for an alleged offence committed on July 11, 1987, given that Section 365-A was only incorporated into the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on September 3, 1989. The Supreme Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the relevant provision, and the offence was not a scheduled offence at the time of its commission. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the complaint should have been maintained under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, noting that the complaint was specifically framed under Section 365-A and no request for amendment or substitution of the charge had been made before the trial court.
- Does a Special Court have jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the alleged offence occurred before the section was incorporated into the Code?
- Can a private complaint filed under a specific section of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained under a different section if no request for amendment was made before the trial court?
- Is a Special Court's cognizance of a complaint valid if the offence alleged is not a scheduled offence at the time of its commission?
AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against the common judgment dated 27-9-1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 197 of 1993 and 229 of 1993 filed by the respondents for quashment of proceedings initiated by the learned Judge Special Court (constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act), Faisalabad, hereinafter referred to as the Special Court on the basis of the petitioner's complaint made by him on 4-1-1993, allowing the above petition on the ground that the above private complaint was made under section 365-A, P.P.C. Which was incorporated in the Pakistan Penal Code by Ordinance No, IX of 1989 with effect from 3-9-1989, whereas offence had taken place on 11-7-1987 and hence the Special Court had no jurisdiction as the offence under section 365-A was not a scheduled offence. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
2.In support of the above petition Mr. Qadeer Ahmed Siddiqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court erred in quashing the above proceedings as the private complaint even disclosed the commission of offence under section 392, P.P.C. Which was triable by the Special Court.
His further submission was that merely the omission to mention the . Above section on the part of the petitioner in the private complaint, could not have been fatal to the above proceedings. The above contentions are devoid of any force. The private complaint was specifically made under section 365-A, P.P.C. And that the learned Judge of the Special Court took cognizance under the above provision of the above P.P.C. The petitioner did not make any request for the amendment of the above private complaint or substitution of section 392, P.P.C. In place of 365-A, P.P.C. Admittedly, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the above offence under the above section, which had taken place much before the addition of section 365-A in the P.P.C.
3.There is no merits in the above petition. Leave is refused,
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments