| Case ID |
514ca63a-400f-442a-be87-1d7eac55afaa |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos. 37/P and 178/1 of 1989, Crim |
| Decision Date |
Oct 24, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 24, 1993 |
| Decision |
The Federal Shariat Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the accused under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, due to jurisdictional issues with authorities under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. The convictions were deemed illegal as the competent trial forums were the Courts of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appeals and Revisions were disposed of with remands to the proper courts for retrial. Bail was granted to the appellants, and the cases were directed to be retried under appropriate jurisdiction and legal provisions. The court emphasized the overriding effect of the Prohibition Order over the Frontier Crimes Regulation, ensuring that Hudood offenses are tried in the proper judicial forums to maintain legal integrity and uphold constitutional mandates. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Criminal Appeals Nos. 37/P and 178/1 of 1989, along with Criminal Revisions Nos. 3/P and 10/P of 1993, the Federal Shariat Court delivered a pivotal judgment on October 24, 1993. This case centered around the jurisdictional boundaries between the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901 and the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), particularly in the context of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) of the North-West Frontier Province (N-W.F.P.).
The appellants, including Mst. Yasmeen and Muhammad Zada, were convicted under sections 1(2) and 10/11 of the Zina Ordinance by authorities operating under the FCR. They challenged the legality of their convictions, arguing that the competent legal forum for such offenses was the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and not the authorities under the FCR. The Federal Shariat Court meticulously examined the interplay between the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and the existing Frontier Crimes Regulation.
The court underscored that the Zina Ordinance was extended to both FATA and PATA through Notifications issued by the President and the Governor of N-W.F.P., respectively. These ordinances had an overriding effect on any existing laws, including the FCR, thereby establishing that trials for Hudood offenses should be conducted in the Courts of Session. The court found that the trials conducted by FCR authorities lacked proper jurisdiction, rendering the convictions and sentences of the appellants illegal.
Furthermore, the court referenced precedent cases such as Said Amir v. The State (PLD 1990 FSC 26) and Sajjad Hussain and others v. The State (PLD 1989 FSC 50), which reinforced the supremacy of the Federal Shariat Court in matters pertaining to Hudood laws. The decision emphasized that the Federal Shariat Court holds exclusive revisional and other jurisdiction over Hudood cases, ensuring that legal processes adhere to constitutional mandates and uphold the rule of law.
In its judgment, the court set aside the previous convictions and remanded the cases to the appropriate Political Agent/Sessions Judge for retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also granted bail to the appellants, directing them to appear before the trial court on November 15, 1993. This ruling not only rectified the jurisdictional overreach by FCR authorities but also reinforced the legal framework governing Hudood offenses, ensuring that they are adjudicated within the proper judicial channels.
This case holds significant implications for the legal landscape in Pakistan, particularly in the administration of justice in tribal areas. It clarifies the jurisdictional authority of the Federal Shariat Court and reaffirms the applicability of mainstream criminal procedure laws over traditional or tribal regulations like the FCR in specific legal contexts. By doing so, the court has contributed to the harmonization of legal practices and the protection of defendants' rights within the ambit of Hudood laws.
The case also highlights the importance of clear legal provisions and the need for consistent application of laws across different regions and administrative frameworks. The Federal Shariat Court's decision serves as a precedent for future cases where jurisdictional boundaries and the applicability of specific laws come into question, promoting fairness and adherence to established legal protocols.
In conclusion, Criminal Appeals Nos. 37/P and 178/1 of 1989, along with Criminal Revisions Nos. 3/P and 10/P of 1993, represent a critical juncture in Pakistan's judicial history. The Federal Shariat Court's judgment not only addressed the immediate legal concerns of the appellants but also set a standard for the proper adjudication of Hudood offenses, ensuring that justice is administered within the correct legal frameworks. |
| Court |
Federal Shariat Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Federal Shariat Court,
Code of Criminal Procedure,
Frontier Crimes Regulation,
Zina Ordinance,
Federally Administered Tribal Areas,
Provincially Administered Tribal Areas
|
| Judges |
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, C.J.,
NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Atique-ur-Rehman Qazi,
Mian Muhammad Ajmal,
Mr. Saeed Baig
|
| Petitioners |
Mst. YASMEEN
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 1051,
1994 PLD 2
|
| Other Citations |
Said Amir v. The State PLD 1990 FSC 26,
Sajjad Hussain and others v. The State PLD J989 FSC 50
|
| Laws Involved |
Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),
Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901),
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
|
| Sections |
1(2),
10/11
|