Khyal Mat Shah Vs The State

I

l.

THE PE HI URT

V PESHAWABT

l.fudicial Degrtmentl

Cr.Misc- No.l2-Pl2O23 In Tran er Ann Iication No.33-P12022 Khyal Mat Shah s/o Awal Shah, r/o Bara District Khyber.

Petitioner (s)

VERSUS

The State and others

Respondent (s)

For Petitioner (s) :- M/S Noor Alam Fawad Afzal Khan Safi and Malik Nasruminallah. Advocates.

For Respondent(s) IWS Aamir Javed. Advocate General KP. Sana Ullah Khan Addl. Attomev General Federation- Tario Kakar and Sved Bilal J Bacha (Soecial Prosecutors for ANF). Jalal ud Din Akbar-e-Azam Gara. Malik Haroon Ifl bal & Mu hash tr IVfanzoor AAGs for th e Provincial Govemment Date of hearing: 13.10.2023 Date of announcement lk.rz.2a2Z

JUDGMENT

ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM" J.- Through this Cr.Misc Application, Khayal Mat Shah, the petitioner has prayed for:-

i. That order dated 11.04.2023, passed by a Division Bench of this court in Transfer Application No.33-P12022. may kindly be revisited/re-considered in light of judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WP No.2889-P/2020 and order dated 20.06.2020, passed in Review Petition No.l78-P/2020 in WP No. 2889-P12020, administrative order dated 10.11.2022 as well as Civil Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofPakistan.

ii. That keeping in view the judgments (supra) of this Court and pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case may be allowed to be fied by the court established under the provisions of section 22 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act,20l9; and

iii. eny other order deems proper may kindly be passed in favour ofthe petitioner.

2 As per averments in the application, petitioner Khyal Mat Shah, is an under hial prisoner in case FIR No.98/2021 dated 19.10.2020, registered under Sections 9(c) and 15 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (To be referred hereinafter as "Act of 1997) at Police Station ANF, Peshawar and is behind the bars since his arrest on 19.10.2020 Grievance of the petitioner is that his case has been transferred from the Special Court established under section 22 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 (To be referred hereinafter as $Act of 2019'), to the Special Court established under the Act of 1997, n compliance with the judgment dated L1,.04.2023, passed by this Court in Trans fer Ann lication No-3 3-P of 2022 that on promulgation of the Act of 2019 on 4ft September, 2019, jurisdiction of the Special Court established under the Act of 1997 was ousted to the extent of the

J

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by the express provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1997, consequently, the Courts of Sessions Judges and the Additional Sessions Judges in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, were conferred with the powers of the Special Courts under the Act of 1997 as well as under the Act of 2019; that after promulgation of the Act of 2019, one Muhammad Siddique accused in case FIR No.l43l19 registered under section 9 (c ) of the Act of 1997 registered at ANF, filed Writ Petition No.

2889-P12020. titled. "Muhammad Siddique Vs Federation of Pakistan & others" before this court wherein he questioned vires of the Act of 2019 and sought issuance of the following writ:- "To declare that arresUseizures, investigation conducted by respondent No.4 within the territorial jurisdiction of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa after the commencement of the Act of 2019 as illegal, unlawful without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, coroum-non-judice and beyond the mandate ofthe Act of2019.

To direct the respondent not to

submit challan before the court of Judge Special Court (CNS) under the CNS Act, 1997 against the petitioner.

The Writ Petition (ibid) was contested by the respondents and this court after hearing both the sides,

vide judgment dated 01.12.2020, observed that section 59 of the Act of 2019 has effectively repealed section 9 (c ) of the Act of 1997 to the extent of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, the accused shall be charged under section 9 or 11 of the Act of 2019, as the case may be, by an authorized Officer; that members of the ANF had powers of police for arrest and investigation of narcotics offences and could investigate offences under the Act of 2019 as an authorized officer; that Special court established by the Federal Govemment could not take cognizance ofan offence under the Act of 2019, as the special court established under section 22 of the Act of 2019 has the exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences under the Act. For the sake of convenience and ready reference relevant part of the judgment (ibid) is reproduce below:-

"The Courts established under section

22 of the Act of 2019, in view of section 23 have the exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences cognizable under the Act of2019, which read as:-

"S.23. Jurisdi ction to Trv offences:- The special court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences cognizable under this Act.

Therefore, the Soecial Court established under seclion 46 of the Act of I 997. could not take iz.ance of anv offen ce. under

the Act of 2019, as in view of Section 45 of the Act of 1997. such courtt ed under section 16 of e Act of 199 could exefcise Dowet apainst offences.

committed under the Act of 1997.

howe vet the Soecial Court.

under section 46 of the CNS Act. 1997, could oroceed in with law. in cases alreadv te?islered before the oromulpation of the Act of 2019 Such cases could not be effected thereof by promulgation of the Act of 1997.

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this and the connected writ petitions are disposed of with direction to ANF, to substitute relevanl nrovisinn of law. orovided thereunder the Act of 2019, for the concetn offence and reoort under section 173 Cn.P.C. be submilted beforc the Soecial Court CNSA established under section 22 of the Act of 2019, and cases alrcadv submitled be ote the Soecial Court CNS established un r section 46 of the Act of 1997. resistercd

ofthe Act of 2019. all he lransfured to comDetent Soecial Courts. established under section 22 of the Acl of 2019 and the Special Courts on receipt of cases. mav substilule. charpe the acc ander

relevant orovision of the orevailine law of the Act of 201 accordinplv." ld and underlines are our for emphasis).

3 Being discontented, the Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force (AI.{F), filed Review Petition No.178-P/2020 for review of the judgment (supra) of this court but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2022, for the reasons that no mistake or error could be pointed out in the judgment under review, and secondly, that the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Operative part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "We are of the firm view that review is not available for reconsideration or re-hearing of the case. We find that the points urged by the leamed counsel for the petitioners have elaborately been discussed and answered by this court in the impugned judgment; therefore, the same cannot be re- opened in review petition. Nothing has been shown by the petitioners that there has been mistake or eror apparent on the face ofthe record, wherebyjudgment passed by this court could be reviewed, oarticularlv. when civil oetition for leave to aooeal aeainst the imPusned iudsment is sub-iudice before the Hon'ble Suoteme Court of Pahistan In the circumstanc€s no case for review is made out, consequently, this review petition is dismissed.

4.It is important to mention here that judgment dated 01.12.2020 in WP No.2889-P of 2020, was

followed and relied upon by this court in its judgment dated 14.01.2021, rendered in WP No.l237-Pl202L titled. "Gul Kha n Vs the State". relevant part of which is reproduced below for ready reference:- "We have before us the judgment of this Court passed in case titled, "Muhammad Sidique Vs Federation of Pakistan" (Writ Petition No.2889-P/2020). In the said petition, the petitioner had challenged his arrest and investigation by the ANF in the cases whereby the contraband were recovered from him. The question of jurisdiction of ANF to investigate in the matter and submission of challan before the court was extensively discussed in the said judgment. This court while considering section 6 of the CNSA, 1997, has held that ANF has the jurisdiction to arrest and investigate any matter relating to narcotic.

However, in view of section 59 of the KP CNSA, 2019 repealing the jurisdiction of all courts established under CNSA 1997, this court has held that ANF after comoletion of investieation shall submit chatlan before the SPecial Court established u er sectio 22 of th eKP CNSA 2019. The iudpment of this court wa3 llowed in the subs eouent iuds ment dated t4-01.2 1 in WP No.

654-D/2020. therefore. we are not

inclined to hold a different view.

In view ofthe above, we direct the

AI\tr' to submit comolete challan in all these cases before the Snecial Court established under section 22 of the KP CNSA 2019 within Iifteen (15) davs fiom receipt of this iudsment. Similarlv. if anv challan is submitted before the Snecial Court established under CNSA 1997. the said Cou rt shall transmit the cases to the Soecia Court estab hed under section 22 of the KP CNSA 2019 forthwith. (Bold and underlines are our for emphasis).

5.In compliance of the judgments (supra) of all the cases registered by the ANF, after promulgation of the Act of 2019 and pending trial before the Special Court (CNS) established under the Act of 1997, were transferred to the special courts empowered under section 22 of.the Act of 2019 for frial and conclusion'

6.On 3l't March, 2022,Yrhyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 (To be referred hereinafter as the "Amendment Act of 2022? was promulgated whereby section 58A was inserted in the Act of 2019. Because of insertion of 58A in the Act of 2019, the respondents filed (Anti Transfer Annlicatio n No.33 -P of 2022. titled.

Narcotic Fo Vs of KPK" before this court

for transfer of all pending cases/trials of the ANF from the Special Courts established under the Act of 2019 to the Special Court (CNS) established under the Act of 1997. This court after hearing both the sides vide judgment dated 11,04.2023, passed the following order:-

"Since all the cases of ANF pending in any special Court of CNS, before the

commencement of the Amendment Act,

2022, have been validated and given

continuity to be tried in the Special Courts under clause (d) of section 58A ofthe Act of 2019, therefore, the instant aoolicalion ,s of in te of dbec s lhat

all the like nsture cases pendine in the courts of Secessions ludses/Judse Soecial Courts established bv the cial

Govern ment be tran ned to the

Court (CNS) established bv the Federal Governmenl'.

7, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant application for reconsideration of the j$gnrent (ibid), in light of the judgments dated Ol.l2.2O2O in WP No.2889-P/2020 and judgment dated 14.01.2021, in WP No'1237-P of 2021, which though have been assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but being not suspended, still holds the field.

l0

8 We have heard the arguments of leamed counsel for the parties and perused all the judgments (ibid) of this court as well as the law on the subject i.e.

the Act of 2019 since its promulgation and till insertion of section 58A.

9 The main controversy before this larger Bench is "Whether orderijudgment dated 11.04.2023, passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Transfer A nolica tion No.33-P12022. n pursuance whereof cases registered by the Anti-Nmcotic Force (AI.{F) under the Act of 1997 andpending adjudication before the Special Courts established under the Act of 2019, after promulgation of the Act of 2019 on 4fr Septembe\ 2019 till Amendment Act of 2022 notified on 3l't March 2022,have rightly been ordered to be transferred to the Special Courts established under the Act of 1997?

10.Undeniably, impugred judgment dated 11.04.2023, passed in the Transfer Application No.33-P of 2022, is in conflict with the judgments dated 01.12.2020 afi 14.0L2021, passed by Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court in Writ Peti on No.28 80-Pn020 . titled . *Muha m mad Sidioue Vs Federatio n and others" and W rit Petition No.

t237-P12021. titled. 66Gul Khan Vs the S te". respectively, and rightly so because the former

1l

judgment/order has been passed after promulgation of the Amendment Act of 2022, while the latter two judgments of the Division Benches are before promulgation of the Amendment Act of 2022. ln the former judgment, this court has directed ANF, to substitute relevant provision of law, provided under the Act of 2019, for the concern offence and report under section 173 CI.P.C. be submitted before the Special Court CNSA established under section 22 of the Act of 20L9, and cases already submitted before the Special Court CNS established under section 46 of the Act of 1997, registered after promulgation of the Act of 2019, sholl be tronsfened to comDetent Soecial Courts.

establish ed section 22 of the Act of 2019 and the Special Courts on receipt of cases, may substitute, charge the accused under relevant provision of the prevailing law of the Act of 2019, accordingly. Review Petition No.178-P/2020 filed against the judgment (ibid) by the respondents has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2022. The respondents have questioned the judgment (ibid) beforc the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Petition wherein leave has been granted, however, judgment of this court has not been suspended and the maffer is still subjudice' Similarly, judgment dated 1401.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WP No'1237-P of

2lTl,wherein the judgment dated 01.12.2020 has been followed and relied upon, is also still in the field. Since the judgments (ibid) of this court still hold the field and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, we shall restrict our findings only to the extent ofjurisdiction of the Special Courts established under the two Statutes/Laws with regard to the cases registered by the ANF after promulgation of the Act of 2019 till 3l't March, 2022 when the Amendment Act of 2022 was promulgated, because large numbers of cases i.e. 315 are pending in limbo on account conflicting provisions between the two Statutes.

11.After promulgation of the Act of 2019, n the year 2022, lhe Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment Act, 2022) was introduced on 3lstMarch 2022 whetein besides other essential amendments, section 58-A was inserted in the Act of 2019 so as to curb the anomaly arisen in pursuance of the two laws, which for the sake of convenience and ready reference is reproduced below:- 66s.58A. Conti nuation and validation:- Notwithstanding anlthing contained in this Act or any other law or rules, for the time being in force:-

(a)The ANF shall continue to exercise powers and Perform function under this Act'

l3

(b)All actions taken, proceedings commenced and things done by the ANF under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 QAct No.XXV of 1997), in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, before the commencement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act,2022, shall be deemed to have been validly taken, commenced and done under this Act.

(c)The police station, established under section 6 of the Anti Narcotic Force Act, 1997 (Act No,III of 1997) shall deemed to be established under this Act and shall continue its function under section ,14 ofthis Act; and

(d)Alt the cases of ANT" nend rn anv Snecial Co urt of AllF before the commencement of the Khvber Pakhtunkhwa Contro lofNa tic Su ces

(Amendment) Act 2022 shall continue to be tried in the soecial courb."

L2. Admittedly, by the time when the judgments dated 01.12.2020 and 14.01.2020 were passed by this court in WP No.2889-P12020 and Writ Petition No.1237-P of 2021, respectively, section 58A was not on the Statute Book of the Act of 2019, therefore, this court directed transfer ofcases registered under the Act of 1997 by the ANF from the Special Courts established under the Act of 2019 to the Special Court

(CNS) established under the Act of 1997. By insertion of section 58A (b) of the Amendment Act 2022, all actions taken, proceedings commenced and things done by the ANF under the Act of 1997, in the province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2022, have been validated, however, this blanket saving has been circumscribed in clause (d) of section 58A of the Amendment Acl, 2022, whereby its application has been limited to the extent of case registered by ANF pending in any special Court constituted under the Act of 1997 after promulgation of the Act of 2019 till promulgation of the KP Amendment Act of 2022, which shall continue to be tried in the Special Courts established under the Act of 2019. It is on the force of the Amendment Act of 2022 that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court transferred the pending trials back to the Special Court established under the Act of 1997 from the special Courts established under the Act of 2019 vide order dated 11.04.2023 passed in the Transfer Application No.33-P of 2022, however, in the order ibid it has not been clarified that such transfer of cases would be applicable to cases of the ANF registered in the interregnum period i.e. after promulgation of the Act of 2019 till Amendment Act of2022.

l5

13.Section 58-A clause (a) of the Act of 2019 declares that ANF shall continue to exercise powers and perform functions under the Act of 2019. Clause (ibid) is prospective and affirms the role of ANF under the Act of 2019 for future cases. It supports the judgments of this court passed in Writ Petition No.2889-P of 2020 and Writ Petition No.5072-P of 2020, albeit, with a more pronounced ANF role. The judgments ibid envisaged ANF members as authorized Officers according to the definition clause, the Amendment in the Act explicitly incorporates the ANF under the umbrella of the Act of 2019. Additionally, through the deeming clause, section 58-A desigrates ANF Police Stations established under section 6, ANF as Police Station, established under the Act of 2019. It is furthermore plain that section 58-A clause (b) bV inserting the deeming clause validates all actions done, proceedings commenced or things done under the Act of 1997 as if they had been done under the Act of 2019. Read in conjunction, clause (d) of the same section protects the trial held by the Special Court ANF under the Act of 1997. On deeming clause writes N.S Bindra in 6'The Internretation ofStatutes (Seventh Editio n. 1984):-

"The word deemed is used a great deal in modem legislation. Sometimes it is used to

impose for the purpose of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail.

Sometime, it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. Sometimes, it is used to give a comprehensive description that includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is in the ordinary sense impossible."

In case titled, "Shah Said vs State" (PLD 1958 Peshawar 51). accused Shah Said was convicted under section 302 PPC read with section ll of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) and sentenced to 14 years R.I. by the Deputy Commissioner Mardan on 26dr April 1954. At the relevant time, FCR was not extended to District Mardan. On 10ft December, 1964, FCR was amended and extended to six districts including Mardan and the amending Act read that all orders made, proceedings taken, sentences passed and acts done in all the six districts were deemed to have been validly taken under the Regulation. This Court while dismissing the writ Petition held as under:- "Validating Acts are essentially designed to legalize those acts of the administrative authorities or statutory bodies which when done had failed to achieve the expected results only by reason of some statutory

disability or inegularity. The Act validates all orders made under the Frontier Crimes Regulation which when made the

authorities concemed honestly and genuinely thought and believed that they possessed powers under the Frontier Crimes Regulation to pass such orders.

The Act is curative in character and there is no constitutional bar for the legislature to pass them. The legislature has unfettered power to make laws giving them either expressly or by necessary implication the retrospective operation.

The intention of the legislature that all previous acts passed by the relevant authorities are legalized is clear from the Acts themselves and the courts are bound to give effect to it."

Indian Supreme Court in "Central Bureau of Investisation Vs Suboth Kumar Dutta" 17ft Jan uary, 1997, while dealing with an objection to Special Court's jurisdiction, which had not been constituted under the newly enacted Prevention of Comrption Act, 1988 held as under:-

"A bare look at the provisions of sub- section 2 of section 30 shows that anything done or any action taken or purported to have been taken under or in pursuance of the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1947,

shall be deemed to have been done taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1988. Given this specific provision, the cognizance of the offence taken by the Special Court stood saved".

To refer to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision in o'Bauman vs Nova Scotia" (Attornev GeneraD.

2001 NSCA 51, the problem lies in recognizing when an impermissible retrospective operation result. As was noted William Black in "Charter Rights Application to Pre-Enactment Events", 1982, UBCL.

Review (Charter special edition), 59 atP.63:

"The distinction between future consequences of a past event

(retrospective) and a future consequence ofan ongoing condition or state ofaffairs (prospective) is often unclear.

14.Granting relief in Transfer Application No.33-P of 2022, constituted an impermissible retrospective application of 58-A clause (b) and (d) in that it required the court to first create invalidity out of an already valid action. Record of the case shows the unhappy phraseology in clause (d) led to confusion regarding the precise interpretation of the Special Court, prompting a Govemment's clarification. In response, the Government said that the reference to the

Special court in clause (d) means the Federal Court ANF. Despite the muddle sometimes seen in legislative drafting, it is crucial to ascertain the legislature's intent. "Unhappy wording, infelicitous expression of imperfect or inartistic drafting may not defeat for that reason alone the obvious object of the validating law and its retrospective content. The real question is whether the court can speculate on presumed intent of the Parliament and rewrite that object with implicit sense. We listen to largely the language of the Statute but where, as here, clearing up of marginal obscurity may make interpretation surer if light from dependable sources were to beam in, the court may such aid. What is obvious as legislative intent from section 58-A clause (b) is that the legislature gave validity to proceedings conducted under the Act of 1997, which were otherwise required to be conducted under the Act of 2019. For the same reason, the legislature gives protection to the trial held under the Act of 1997.It is obvious that neither the Act of 2019 nor the amendment Act of 2022 will have any impact on the ANF's authority to investigate offences of interprovincial narcotics trafficking under the Act of 1997 or the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts established under the Act of 1997 as section 59 of the Act of 2019 has repealed the Act of 1997 to the extent

of narcotics offences within the province. We are fortified in this regard by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "State throu eh Director ANF Peshawar vs Yasir Khan". rendered in Criminal Petition No.7 of 2021 wherein it has been held that:- "Consequently, notwithstanding section 59 ibid, the CNS Act, 1997 remains effective with respect to matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federation As a resul the inter- provincial movement of narcotics is also outside the ambit of the renealins

provision. The Special Court CNS

therefore. Dossesses iurisdiction to try g@1".

We are also mindful of the Civil Petition for leave to appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On its effect, it is apt to refer to Crawford Statutory Construction, I 940 Edition:-

"While pending litigation may be exempted from the operation of curative statutes in many instances it is not. But in either case, however, a number of problems arise. Moreover, there is also considerable confusion in the decisions pertaining to their solution. For instance, where pending litigation is not exempt, some courts have held that the Curative Act will apply even after the case has been appealed, and others that it will apply to any case wherein judgment has been

appealed and others that it will apply to any case wherein judgment has been rendered in the lower court. Perhaps the best rule is that a final judgment cannot be affected".

15.As stated above, all actions taken, proceedings commenced and things done by the ANF under the Act of 1997, in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2022, shall be deemed to have been validly taken, commenced and done under the Act and all the cases of ANF, pending in any Special Court of ANF, before corlmencement of the Amendment Act of 2022, shall continue to be tried in the Special Courts established under section 46 of the Act of 1997 in terms of section 58A (d) of the Act of 2019, however, these pending cases would be dealt with by the Special Courts constituted under the Act of 1997 in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2019. The word "proceeding" has not been defured anywhere in the Acts (ibid), however, it is a word much used to express the business done in courts. In Black's Law Dictionary Eight Edition word o'proceedings" means (1. The regular and orderly progression of a law suit, including all acts and evenls between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment 2. Any procedural means for seeking redressfrom a tribunal or agency. 3. An act or step that is part of a larger action. 4. The

business conducted by a court or other official body). In case titled, "Ali Gohar and others Vs Perv atz Ahmed and others" QLD 202 0 Suorem e Court 427).

the word "proceedings" came up for consideration and discussion before the Supreme Court wherein it was observed that:-

"The terms "proceedings" has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. or P.P.C or even the Act it would then be safe to apply its ordinary meaning. A similar exercise was extensively canied out by this court in the State Vs Naeemullah Khan (2001 SCMR 146l), wherein the word "proceedings" having not been defined inHazara Forest Act, 1936, was considered in its ordinary dictionary meaning in the light of the judicial opinion rendered by this court and across the border. This Court affrrms the opinion regarding the purpose of the term "proceedings" finally expressed in the said decision, when it concluded that:-

"Keeping in view the literary meaning and the interpretation of the word "proceedings" as interpreted in various pronouncements given above, we are of the opinion that the word "proceedings" is a comprehensive expresston which incl udes even

steD taken tohtards further orosress of a cause in coufi or trihunal from its commencement till its disposal. In legal

terminology the word "proceedings" means the instituting or carrying on of an action of law. Generally, a "proceedings" is the form and manner of conducting judicial business before a court orjudicial

Officer, including all possible steps in an action from its commencement to the execution of a judgment and in a more particular sense it is any application to a court ofjustice for aid in enforcement of rights, for relief, for redress of injuries, or damage or for any remedial objection. It in its general use comprehends every step taken or measure adopted in prosecution or

defence ofan action."

Moreover, the amendment has been brought in the Procedural Law, therefore, shall have no bearing on the substantive rights ofthe petitioner. It is also settled law that amendment in the Procedural Law can be implemented/given effect retrospectively. Consequently, this court in its judgment dated 11.04.2023, passed in TA No.33-P of 2022 has rightly held that all cases of ANF pending in any special court of (CNS) before the conrmencement of the Amendment Act,2022, have been validated and given continuity to be tried in the Special Courts under clause (d) of section 58A of the Act of 2019 to which no exception can be taken.

t6 For what has been stated above, the instant Cr.Misc. No.12-P of 2023 in Transfer Application No.

33-P of 2022, stands dismissed.

t7 The worthy Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed send copy of this judgment to the Director Anti-Narcotic Force (AI.{F) KP Peshawar and the worthy Sessions Judges of all the Districts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who shall onward circulate the same amongst the Special Courts established under the Act of 2019 and Act of 1997 for compliance and guidance.

Annou nced:

\ Llf rz1 z,e.l M.S'ttd Af di CS

isne Judge

4 *I

JLIDGE

JUDGE

Larger Bench:

Mr. Justice Ishtirq lbrahim, Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge; Mr. Justice Shekeel Ahmad and Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asrdullah