Pakistani case law on CrPC's applicability on Special Laws

Abid Saeed v. The State 2002 P Cr. LJ 1818

Where a statute has created a special offence and lays down a special procedure for investigation and trial of such offence, it is that procedure that must be followed and not the ordinary procedure.  Page 1826.

Perusal of provisions of the Customs Act and CrPC would show that that Sections 161, 162, 163 and 185-A contain similar provisions as contained in CrPC for regulating arrest, search , report, remand, enquiry, charge sheet as well as taking of the cognizance of the offence under the Act. When a special enactment contains procedural provisions in respect of such matters, the provisions of Cr.PC  in terms of Section 5(2) of CrPC will not be applicable. Page 1841

The State v. Hamtho 1971 SCMR 686

Having examined the relevant provisions of the Land Customs Act and Sea Customs Act of 1873 the Supreme Court stated that it was well settled that there a statute created a special offence and lays down a special procedure for the trial of such offence, it is that procedure that must be followed and not the ordinary procedure. Therefore it was held that persons accused of contravention of provisions of Sea Customs Act could not be sent up by police officers for trial with Challan under CrPC.

Green Valley Trading Company v. Additional Director Adjudication SBP 2003 YLR 1185

Joint reading of Sections 1(2) and 5(2) OF THE CrPC indicates that the CrPC is not applicable to matters governed by any special or local law unless expressly provided making it applicable to such special or local law wholly or to any extent. Page 1189

Nawaz Sharif v. The State 2000 MLD 496

Cases registered against the accused being triable by Special Court established under provisions of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, provisions of Section 196 CRPC which pertained to general law would not be applicable to proceedings before Special Court because the Act was a special law and had overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in CRPC or any other law. Provisions of Section 196 CRPC would not be applicable to proceedings before the Special Court in view of inconsistency and difference between provisions of Section 30 of the ATA 1997 and Section 196 of the CRPC. Page 951

Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 127

Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 is a special law conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Special Courts constituted under the said Act to try only the offences enumerated in the schedule attached therewith in which offence under 411 of PPC had not been included. Conviction and sentence of accused under Section 411 PPC by the Special Court was therefore jurisdiction. (Pages 129-130)

Habib Bank v. The State PLD 1988 Kar 49

The honourable Karachi High Court held that provisions of Criminal Procedure were subject to provisions of the special enactment and in any case of inconsistency between provisions of CRPC  and special enactment, the latter would prevail.  (On page 53)

Ghulam Ali Shah v. District Magistrate and Tribunal Sanghar 1970 P C. L J 393

Section 10 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas, Ordinance 1959 enacts that the Tribunal shall follow the procedure prescribed in the CRPC but subject to the provisions of the Ordinance. The very fact that an express provision was made in this respect implies that the provisions of the CRPC were not applicable to the Ordinance.  There is nothing in the Ordinance to support the argument that the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 561 CRPC to proceedings in the Ordinance.  (Page 395)

Siddiqullah v. State PLD 2003 Peshawar 77

In this case it was held that Offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 were non cognizable by the police and all powers of raid, arrest of the accused and recovery of articles under Section 8 of the Ordinance aforementioned shall lie with the Magistrate of the category mentioned thereunder. FIR was declared to be void ab initio on this ground and all subsequent trial proceedings were declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

Allah Diwaya v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 571

The Sessions Judge made a reference to the Lahore High Court requesting guidance on whether Court of Sessions had jurisdiction where kerosene oil used for the commission of the offence fell in the purview of the Schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts)Act 1975. The High Court held that all offences except one under Section 436 of the PPC were not scheduled offences and the case to that extent was to be tried by the Court of Sessions.  Meanwhile for Kerosene oil offence, the prosecution would be carried out in the Special Court provided by the aforementioned Act. (Page 576)

The State v. Habib Jalib PLD 1967 SC 1297

In this case the matter pertained to a proceeding under Rule 47 of Defence of Pakistan Rules against the the poet Habib Jalib. The issue pertained to bail under 497 of the CRPC which was allowed  the Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that “once it is held that jurisdiction vested exclusively in the Special Tribunal, it must follow necessarily that no other court could deal with the matter including bail application.” (On Page 1301)

Bashir Hussain v. The State PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 164

Section 5(2) of the CrPC lays down that offences under other laws shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisdions of the CrPC subject to any special provisions made with regard to such offences. Page 167

“Subject to”:

Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1965 SC 404

The case concerned appeal by a delegated authority. The effect of the words “subject to the provisions of this act and rules made there under” was discussed by the Supreme Court. Held that the general principle that delegated authority would be subject to the same remedies that are provided against the delegator would not be applicable because of the express opening words of the section i.e. “subject to the provisions of this act and rules made there under”.  (Page 408)

Jalaluddin v. Muhammad Rafiq Settlement Commissioner PLD 1965 SC 261

Same as PLD 1965 SC 404. The effect of the words “subject to the provisions of this act and rules made there under” was discussed by the Supreme Court. Held that the general principle that delegated authority would be subject to the same remedies that are provided against the delegator would not be applicable because of the express opening words of the section i.e. “subject to the provisions of this act and rules made there under”.

Rizwan Ahmed v. Commissioner Income Tax 2009 PTD 1491

The effect of the words “subject to the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001” in Circular No. 8 of 2008 Investment Tax Scheme. Held that this was not a non-obstante clause and all provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, would remain intact. (Page 1496)