THE STATE through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh, Karachi vs Dr. KHALID MOIN and 3 others

ORDER

1. ' By this Criminal Revision Application, the State has assailed the order of the learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court No,2, Karachi, dated 28-3-2000.

2. ' We have heard Syed Jalil A, Hashmi, learned. A.A.-G. For the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

3. ' The Criminal Revision against the impugned order is not maintainable in law under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (hereinafter called the Act). There is no specific provision in act for challenging the order by way of revision application. By section 32 of the Act the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has been made applicable for certain purposes. In case the provisions of Cr.P.C.

4. Are inconsistent to any provision of the Act, those are to be struck down. It will be pertinent to reproduce herein under section 32 of the Act for ready reference: "32. Overriding effect of Act.--(1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law but, save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the 'provisions' of this Act, apply to the proceedings before an Anti-Terrorism Court and for the purpose of the said provisions of the Code, an Anti-Terrorism Court shall be deemed to be Court of Session.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in subsection (1), the provisions of section 350 of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings before an-Anti-Terrorism Court and for this purpose any reference in those provisions to a Magistrate shall be construed as a reference to an Anti-Terrorism Court."

5. ' The bare reading of section 32 of the Act shows that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are applicable to the extent that they are not inconsistent with other provisions of the Act. While considering the question of applicability of section 435, Cr.P.C. It is essential to glance over sections 25 and 31 of the Act. For the sake of convenience both provisions are reproduced here in below: "Section 25. Appeal.--(1) An Appeal against the final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court shall lie to a High Court.

(2) Copies of the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court shall be supplied to the accused and the Public Prosecutor free of cost on the day of the judgment is pronounced and the record of the trial shall be transmitted to the High Court within three days of the decision.

(3) An appeal under subsection (1) may be preferred by a person sentenced by an Anti-Terrorism Court to a High Court within seven days of the passing of the sentence.

(4) The Attorney-General or an Advocate-General may, on being directed by the Federal or Provincial Government, file an appeal against an order of acquittal or a sentence passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court within fifteen days of such order.

(5) An appeal under this section shall be heard and decided by a High Court within seven working days."

6. "Section 31. Finality of judgment."-- A judgment or order passed, or sentence awarded, by Anti- Terrorism Court subject to the result of an appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court."

7. ' The perusal of section 31 of the Act shows that the judgment or order passed or sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court, subject to the result of an appeal shall be final. The wisdom behind enacting section 31 of the Act by the Legislature appears to be that trial shall be concluded within 7 days and so also the appeal by High Court. The section 25 of the Act postulates that after judgment is pronounced, the copy is to be supplied to the accused as well as to Public Prosecutor and record of the case is to be transmitted to the High Court within three days. The entire procedure has been made automatic. The appeal is only provided against the judgment of acquittal or conviction and all the other orders become final as contemplated under section 31 'et the Act. Thus the sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. Are repugnant to the provisions of the Act reproduced hereinabove.

8. ' The order passed by the Special Court cannot be challenged/assailed by way A of revision as the appeal is provided only against the judgment of conviction or acquittal. The provisions of sections 25, 31 and 32 of the Act are to be read in conjunction and not in isolation to each other. They do not permit that the order passed by Special Court can be challenged in revision.

9. ' Consequently we are of the considered view that criminal revision is not maintainable.

10. ' By our short order, dated 23-5-2000 present criminal revision was dismissed and above are the detailed reasons for the same.

11. Revision .