Summary: a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.203 & 265-K---Finality of orders---Orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court not appealable but final in nature---Scope---Finality clause under S.31, ATA, 1997 does not cover every order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Certain orders, though not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, are final in nature and can be examined through revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Such orders include: (i) discharge of an accused; (ii) remand of an accused; (iii) dismissal of private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C.; (iv) summoning or non-summoning of accused in private complaint; (v) summoning or non-summoning of private witness; (vi) summoning or non-summoning of document or other thing; and (vii) rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435 & 439---Revision against order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---High Court has revisional jurisdiction over orders of Anti-Terrorism Court where order is not appealable under ATA but affects rights of parties and attains finality in respect of such issue---Anti-Terrorism Court is a criminal court subordinate/inferior to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C., except to extent expressly barred by special law. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 21-D---Bail orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Bar---Special restriction imposed by S.21-D, ATA, 1997 excludes revisional remedy in bail matters to the extent provided therein---High Court’s revisional jurisdiction remains available for other non-appealable final orders of Anti-Terrorism Court under Ss.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Ss. 25, 31 & 32---Appeal, finality and application of Cr.P.C.---Interpretation---S.25 provides appeal against final judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court---S.31 gives finality to judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court subject to result of appeal under the Act---S.32 applies Cr.P.C. to proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Court so far as not inconsistent with ATA---Combined effect is that Cr.P.C. revisional provisions continue to apply to orders not falling within appeal mechanism and not expressly excluded by ATA. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175, 199 & 203---Anti-Terrorism Court---Status---Subordinate/inferior Court---Judicial framework under Constitution---Courts recognized by Constitution include Supreme Court, High Courts, Federal Shariat Court and such other courts as may be established by law---Anti-Terrorism Court, being created by statute, falls within category of courts established by law and remains subject to supervisory/revisional control of High Court unless expressly excluded by law. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition against interim/order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---Where an efficacious remedy of criminal revision is available against non-appealable final/interlocutory order of Anti-Terrorism Court, constitutional petition under Art.199 is not maintainable---Writ petition challenging non-summoning/summoning order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court was converted into criminal revision. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435 & 439---High Court’s power of revision---Inferior criminal courts---Anti-Terrorism Court---High Court may call for and examine record of any inferior criminal court to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order---Anti-Terrorism Court, though not subordinate to Sessions Court, is inferior/subordinate to High Court for revisional purposes. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.6---Classes of criminal courts---Courts created under special law---Effect---Cr.P.C. recognizes that, besides High Courts and courts constituted under Cr.P.C., there may be other criminal courts constituted under other laws---Such courts remain subject to revisional control of High Court unless revisional jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly excluded. (i) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Private complaint---Order summoning some accused and refusing to summon others---Remedy---Petitioner filed private complaint before Anti-Terrorism Court and challenged order whereby some proposed accused were not summoned/deleted from array of accused---Such order was not appealable under ATA but was revisable before High Court---Constitutional petition was not proper remedy. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.203---Dismissal of private complaint by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Order dismissing private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C. by Anti-Terrorism Court is not appealable under ATA but is final in nature qua complainant’s grievance---High Court can examine such order in revisional jurisdiction. (k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.265-K---Application for acquittal---Rejection by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. is not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, but such order is final in nature for purposes of that application and may be assailed through criminal revision before High Court. (l) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 201---Judgment per incuriam---Effect---Decision rendered by a subsequent Bench of equal strength in ignorance of a statute, binding precedent of Supreme Court, or previous decision of equal strength of same Court on same issue, is per incuriam and has no precedential value. (m) Judicial precedent---- ----Short order of High Court/Supreme Court---Precedential value---Distinction---Short orders are of two kinds: first, those deciding a question of law in clear and operative terms; second, those merely admitting a case, fixing a matter, or making procedural/ad interim arrangements---Short order falling in first category has precedential value, while short order falling in second category has none. (n) Judicial discipline---- ----Coordinate Bench---Conflicting decisions---Reference to larger Bench---Where a Bench of equal strength disagrees with earlier decision of coordinate Bench, proper course is to refer matter to a larger Bench rather than deciding contrary to earlier view---Failure to follow this course creates uncertainty, undermines judicial comity and may render later contrary decision per incuriam. (o) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175 & 203---Access to justice---Independence of judiciary---Subordination of special courts---Tribunal or special court exercising judicial power must fit within constitutional judicial hierarchy and remain under supervisory control of High Court, unless Constitution or valid law provides otherwise---Special criminal court cannot be treated as wholly outside High Court’s revisional/supervisory structure merely because it is established under special statute. (p) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Purpose of special law---Speedy trial---Effect on revisional jurisdiction---Mere fact that ATA was enacted for speedy trial does not, by itself, exclude revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Exclusion of such jurisdiction must be express or necessarily implied from statute---No such general exclusion exists except where ATA specifically restricts remedy. (q) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435, 436 & 439---Writ petition converted into criminal revision---Proper procedural course---Where petitioner had invoked Art.199 against non-summoning order of Anti-Terrorism Court but High Court found revision to be proper remedy, writ petition was ordered to be converted into criminal revision and numbered accordingly. Disposition: Full Bench held that Anti-Terrorism Court is a subordinate/inferior criminal court to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction; High Court can entertain criminal revision under Ss.435, 436 and 439, Cr.P.C. against non-appealable orders of Anti-Terrorism Court, except bail matters restricted by S.21-D, ATA, 1997. Constitutional petition under Art.199 was held not maintainable where revision was competent, and writ petition was directed to be converted into criminal revision.