KARACHI: A sessions court has advised the Sindh government to take necessary steps to establish special courts under the Sindh Mines and Minerals Governance Act, 2021.

The suggestion was made by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Malir) Liaqat Ali Khoso, while allowing a revision application in which he set aside the impugned order of a magistrate who did not entertain direct complaint filed by an official of Mines and Mineral Development Department against private respondents for an offence punishable under Section 27 (unauthorised Mining, Stock and Dressing of Mineral and punishment) of the SMMGA, 2021, concerning alleged illegal mining of Mouram.

“It is necessary that certain advise and directions may be given to remove hurdles in smooth functions and discharge of work under the Act, 2021, hence the Sindh Government is advised to take necessary steps and expedite for issuing notification as required under section 38 [Special Court for Mines and Minerals] of the SMMG, Act, 2021 for establishment of the special courts in each division throughout the province of Sindh as soon as possible,” the court advised.

While setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the magistrate to “entertain the Direct Criminal Complaint forthwith, proceed in accordance with section 200 Cr.P.C, and pass the appropriate orders regarding the issuance of process under section 204 Cr.P.C or otherwise under the mandate provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 without being prejudiced by this order”.

It also directed that the magistrate may continue to hold proceedings within his jurisdiction until a special court under the SMMGA is duly established and becomes functional, after which the case may be transferred to the special court for trial in accordance with the law.

Mentioning “cardinal error” in the impugned order, the court noted that it failed to distinguish between the procedural step of taking cognisance and the final judicial act of trial, which commences after framing of charge and culminates in a judgment of acquittal or conviction.

The court also highlighted that the Section 37 (1) of the SMMGA only bars the trial of the offence by an ordinary court. “It does not expressly bar a judicial magistrate from taking initial cognizance, examining the complainant/witnesses (Sec. 200/202 Cr.P.C.), and issuing process (Sec. 204 Cr.P.C.),” it added.

“Section 37(1) ensures that the complex matters under the SMMGA are ultimately adjudicated by a court of superior status (the Special Court), not that the initial paperwork and initiation of the process must be frozen until that court is physically established. The magistrate’s action in taking cognisance merely sets the judicial process in motion, allowing the case to be transferred to the Special Court once it is notified and assumes jurisdiction,” the court observed.

“The law mandates the creation of a Special Court, but its administrative establishment remains pending. A special law cannot be interpreted to create a jurisdictional vacuum leading to a period of impunity for offenders. Criminal justice must be administered continuously. In such a scenario, the ordinary court of original criminal jurisdiction, the judicial magistrate, must entertain the complaint to: a. Prevent the bar of limitation from operating against the State. b. Preserve the evidence and record the initial depositions. c. Maintain the continuity of the criminal process,” it added.

Published in Dawn, November 10th, 2025