AJK Ehatsab Act, 2001

Under Section 44 of Interim Constitution Act, High Court has jurisdiction as conferred by said Act itself or by any other law–High Court has been empowered to issue writs in appropriate cases under Section 44 of Interim Constitution Act which cannot be taken away by subordinate legislation; in all cases, where jurisdiction is given by a subordinate legislation, same can also be taken away by subordinate legislation–There can hardly be any controversy that power of High Court to release a person on bail under Cr.P.C. has been given by subordinate legislation and can be taken away by any other subordinate legislation as has been done in instant case by enacting Section 10(2) of Ehtesab Act–Thus, there is hardly any justification to argue that words `other Court’ employed in sub-section 2 of Section 10 do not apply to High Court, especially so when no such intention can be inferred from provisions contained in Ehtesab Act 2001–Per : Sardar Said Muhammad, C.J.

S. 10(2) read with S. 561-A, 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898–Even under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. High Court is possessed with inherent powers to check abuse of process of a Court which is extensive in its application and Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not circumscribe its such jurisdiction–Words “nothing in this Code” have been intentionally used by law-makers to widen scope of Section 561-A Cr.P.C.–Powers possessed by High Court under Section 435/439 Cr.P.C. do not impinge, curtail or limit, in any manner whatsoever, powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.–Powers under Section 435/439 Cr.P.C. are independent and jurisdiction can be exercised under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice–Per Muhammad Younus Surakhvi, J. Please see also order of the Court at the end of the Judgment– PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 182

Whether interest of justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice in revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by High Court–If order of trial Court is patently illegal and in violation of provisions of Act under which is acting, High Court is not debarred from exercising its powers to set at naught orders passed by trial Court; for instance if a person is booked for alleged commission of offences under Ehtesab Bureau Act and order passed by trial Court is patently illegal or against provisions of said Act or if there be a simple complaint against an accused under provisions of said Act but if charge is groundless or no prima facie case is made out against accused and he is being kept in custody for indefinite time, doors of High Court by exercising its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are not closed–Held: Even under Section 439 Cr.P.C. High Court was competent to do complete justice and redress wrong and to allow bail to an accused–Per Muhammad Younus Surakhvi, J. Please see also order of the Court at the erd of the Judgment- PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 182

S. 10(2)–Whether provisions of Section 10(2) of Ehtesab Bureau Act operate as a complete bar on powers of High Court to exercise power under Sections 497, 498, 561-A, 491 and 439 Cr.P.C.–Question of–As regarding Code of Criminal Procedure, ouster operates only to extent of grant of bail to an accused person under AJK Ehtesab Act, 2001 because then reference thereafter relates to no other provisions of Code–Should provisions, as it is, be taken to mean that High Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of this Section in Act stands completely ousted ? No such construction could be placed to section for simple reason that there are other important provisions conferring much wider powers on High Court in the matter of grant of bail–It is now a settled principle of law that jurisdiction of superior Courts, if, is intended to be ousted, should be through expressed and definite provisions and not through mere implications–Considering language in which section is couched, Supreme Court is of the view that High Court, in exercise of, its inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 498 Cr.P.C., its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and its jurisdiction under Section 491 Cr.P.c., can allow bail if ends of justice, in its view, so demand–Per Muhammad Younus Surakhvi, J. Please see also order of the Court at the end of the Judgment- PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 182

While granting bail–High Court in support of its view that it has jurisdiction to release an accused person on bail inspite of bar contained in Section 10(2) of AJK Ehtesab Act, 2001 is not sustainable–Granting bail and giving a relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction altogether different considerations weigh with Court and, thus such an order is not helpful for interpreting Section 10(2) of AJK Ehtesab Act, 2001–Per : Sardar Said Muhammad, C.J. Please see also order of the Court at the end of the Judgment– PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 182