ANF Appellate court is not a high court but a district court.

1. **پس منظر:** اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس (ANF) نے اسمگلنگ کی روک تھام ایکٹ 1977 کے تحت شکایات درج کیں، جنہیں ایک خصوصی جج نے نمٹا اور بعد میں اسی ایکٹ کے تحت قائم کردہ خصوصی اپیل کورٹ میں اپیل کی۔

2. **خصوصی اپیل کورٹ:** یہ عدالت، اگرچہ ہائی کورٹ کے جج کی زیر صدارت ہے، خود ہائی کورٹ نہیں ہے۔ یہ خاص طور پر ایکٹ کے تحت منشیات کی اسمگلنگ کے معاملات سے متعلق اپیلوں کو نمٹانے کے لیے بنایا گیا تھا۔

3. **ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ:** پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے خصوصی اپیل کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو چیلنج کرنے والی اے این ایف کی درخواستوں کو خارج کر دیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے استدلال کیا کہ چونکہ خصوصی اپیل کورٹ ہائی کورٹ کے جج کی سربراہی میں ہے، اس لیے وہ آئین کے آرٹیکل 199(5) کے تحت اس عدالت کے فیصلوں کا جائزہ نہیں لے سکتی۔

4. **سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ:** سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے استدلال سے اختلاف کیا۔ اس نے واضح کیا کہ خصوصی اپیل کورٹ ہائی کورٹ کے جج ہونے کے باوجود ہائی کورٹ نہیں ہے اور اس کے فیصلوں پر ہائی کورٹ نظرثانی کر سکتی ہے۔ لہٰذا سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کی برطرفی کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے مقدمات کو دوبارہ غور کے لیے ہائی کورٹ کو بھیج دیا۔

یہ حکم اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ قانون کے ذریعے بنائی گئی خصوصی عدالتیں آئینی عدالتوں سے الگ ہیں اور ان کے فیصلوں پر ہائی کورٹ نظرثانی کر سکتی ہے۔

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, HCJ.

Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik

Mr. Justice Athar Minallah

Civil Petition Nos.388-P, 389-P, 395-P,

396-P, 397-P & 399-P of 2016

(Against the judgment dated 20.04.2016 of the

Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in WPs

Nos.4323-P/15, 4324-P/15, 2655-P/15, 2656-

P/15, 2658-P/15 & 2657-P of 2015)

The State thr. Director A.N.F. Peshawar

… (in CP-388-P/16)

The State thr. Director A.N.F. Peshawar

… (in CP-389-P/16)

Force Commander ANF, Peshawar

… (in CP-395-P/16)

Federal Govt./State through ANF, Peshawar

… (in CP-396-P/16

& CP-397-P/16)

The State thr. Director A.N.F. Peshawar

… (in CP-399-P/16)

Petitioners

Versus

Shereen Shah and another

… (in CP-388-P/16)

Hanif Gul Jadoon, decd. thr. LRs and others

… (in CP-389-P/16)

Rahim and others

… (in CP-395-P/16)

Haji Umar Afridi decd. thr. LRs and others

… (in CP-396-P/16)

Gul Anwar and others

… (in CP-397-P/16)

Malik Gul Bahadur decd. thr. LRs and others

… (in CP-399-P/16)

Respondents

For the petitioner(s):

Mr. Tariq Khan Kakar, ASC (in all cases)

(via video-link, Peshawar)

For the respondent(s): Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, ASC

(in CPs-388-P & 399-P of 2016)

Mr. Ghulam Mehboob Khokhar, ASC

(in CP-395-P/16)

Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC

(in CP-396-P/16)

Date of hearing:

10.05.2023

ORDER

Athar Minallah, J.- The judgment of the Peshawar

High Court, dated 24.04.2016, has led to seeking leave in these

petitions.

The Anti Narcotics Force filed a complaint under

section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 (“Act of

1977”). The complaint was entertained by a Special Judge,

Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

Peshawar, vide order dated 04.01.2011. An appeal was preferred

CP 388-P/16 etc.

under section 43 of the Act of 1977 before the Special Appellate

Court established under section 44, ibid, and it was allowed vide

judgment dated 19.10.2015. The Anti-Narcotics Force invoked the

jurisdiction of the High Court, vested in it under Article 199 of the

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

(“Constitution”). The petitions were dismissed through the

impugned consolidated judgment by the High Court on the sole

ground that since a Judge of the High Court presides over the

Special Appellate Court, therefore, a writ cannot be granted in

terms of Article 199(5) of the Constitution because the High Court

did not fall within the ambit of the expression “person”.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It

is not disputed that the Special Appellate Court is the creation of

the Act of 1977 while the High Court has been established under

Article 175 of the Constitution. The High Court, as described under

Article 192(1), consists of a Chief Justice and so many other

Judges as may be determined by law, or until so determined, as

may be fixed by the President. On the other hand, the Federal

Government is empowered under section 44 of the Act of 1977 to

appoint as many Special Judges as it considers necessary. The

place of headquarter of each Special Judge and the latter's

territorial limits of jurisdiction are also specified by the Federal

Government through a notification. Likewise, the Special Appellate

Courts are established by the Federal Government, pursuant to the

powers conferred under section 46 of the Act of 1977. The Federal

Government has exclusive jurisdiction to specify the place of

headquarter and set out its territorial jurisdiction, or specify the

class of cases in respect of which each Special Appellate Court

shall exercise its jurisdiction. The Special Appellate Court

CP 388-P/16 etc.

constituted under the Act of 1977 has to be presided over by a

person who is a sitting Judge of a High Court. The appointment by

the Federal Government is subject to consultation with the Chief

Justice of the concerned High Court. The Special Appellate Court,

established under the Act of 1977, has to be presided over by a

Judge of the High Court but it is not a High Court, nor does it

perform its judicial functions under the Constitution. The Special

Appellate Court exercises powers and functions as a special forum

and the presiding Judge cannot assume jurisdiction conferred on

the High Court. The Special Appellate Court, constituted under the

Act of 1977 is, therefore, distinct from the High Court. The former

is a creation of a statute while the latter that of the Constitution.

The jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Special Appellate

Court are provided and governed under the Act of 1977. While

presiding a Special Appellate Court, the status of its presiding

Judge, despite being a sitting Judge of the High Court, is that of a

persona designata and not as a Judge of the High Court. The

presiding Judge of the Special Court is no more than an individual

as opposed to a Judge ascertained as a member of the High Court.

The mischief contemplated under Article 199(5) is, therefore, not

attracted.1 It is settled law that the action of a Judge, which relates

to the performance of the latter’s duties and functions as a Judge

of the High Court, or as a member thereof, cannot be brought

under challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution.2 Every

action of a Judge of a High Court, performing functions and

exercising powers and jurisdiction as a persona designata are

amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of

the Constitution. The competence of a High Court to issue a writ to

1 Mian Jamal Shah v. Member Election Commission and others (PLD 1966 SC 1)

2 Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 SC 161)

CP 388-P/16 etc.

a Judge of the High Court in his personal capacity, or where

working as a persona designata has been affirmed by a larger

bench of this Court consisting of thirteen Judges.3. As a corollary,

the acts, orders or judgments of the Appellate Court, established

under the Act of 1977, are not immune from the jurisdiction of the

High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution because its

presiding Judge performs judicial functions as persona designata.

In the cases in hand, it appears that the High Court did not

appreciate the distinction between the powers and jurisdiction and

performance conferred on the High Court under the Constitution

and the special forum, the Special Appellate Court, established

under a statute, the Act of 1977. The impugned judgment of the

High Court is, therefore, based on the erroneous interpretation of

the Constitution, particularly Article 199(5) ibid. The above are the

reasons for converting the petitions into appeals with the leave of

this Court and consequently setting aside the impugned judgment.

The petitions filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force before the High

Court shall be treated as pending and expected to be decided at

the earliest.

Chief Justice

Judge

Islamabad, the

10th May, 2023

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(Aamir Sh.)

3 Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. Presid

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.