Law: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)

Section: 8, 49

  Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), Ss. 8 & 49 read with Government of West Pakistan Notification [under S. 1(3) of West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963] dated 17.12-64--- Disputes regarding lands referred to jirga and decreed under S., 8, F. C. R.---Pending revision petitions under S. 49, F. C. R. Notification dated 17-12-64 issued withdrawing F. C. R. from Province of Baluchistan----Effect: decree passed under F. C. R. void and of no legal effect-Plaintiff, held, entitled to seek remedy in ordinary civil Court. A number of suits relating to lands were filed and referred to jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. Against the decrees passed in the suit the defendants filed revisions before the Commissioner under section 49, F. C. R. During pendency of the revision petitions the Government of West Pakistan issued Notification dated 17-12-64 withdrawing the F. C. R. from the Province of Baluchistan. Consequently the Commis sioner held the revision petitions to have become infructuous and disposed of accordingly. In writ petition before the High Court it was urged by the petitioners that since the Commissioner had lost the power to entertain revision, all the proceedings before the jirga be declared illegal, void and without jurisdiction. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondents it was urged that although the Notification did not repeal the F. C. R. yet its withdrawal amounted to a repeal and, therefore, all proceedings whether before the Commissioner or the jirga at the date of the Notifica tion were saved on the principle contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in holding the revisions to have become infructuous. It was further pressed that even if the power of revision was lost then the order of the jirga had become final. Held, that the proceedings which had undoubtedly started under the Frontier Crimes Regulation could not be finalised under the scheme envisaged therein because before the matter could be dealt with in revision by the Commissioner his juris diction had vanished. The Commissioner's order, therefore, also could not be allowed to stand…