2014SAC8046 (PLP)

Representation

• ----Art. 65---Review of Supreme Appellate Court judgment---Advocate-General, who represented the State, had sought review of specific para of the judgment rendered by Supreme Appellate Court, wherein concession was recorded on behalf of Advocate-General with regard to the statement of accused made before the Police Officer under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that same was not admissible in evidence under the law---Statement of an accused relating to inculpatory statement before the Police Officer was not admissible and on the touchstone of same principle, a confessional statement in terms of S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could have no evidentiary value and was not admissible---Advocate-General had rightly assisted the court on legal premises---Answer of Advocate-General on a court query, was not concession, nor it could be treated as concession of law and fact---Court had appreciated the assistance and the phrase contained in the said para of the judgment, would not convey the meaning of concession at all, but the matter related to the correct position of law which could be submitted to court or Executive Authority and would not carry any adverse effect---Review petition was granted by Supreme Appellate Court, with observation that the words "frankly conceded" used in the para of the judgment, would not be deemed to be a concessional statement, rather same was assistance to the court on a legal point.
• Asad Ullah Khan, Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan.
• Learned Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan, had represented the State in a case Cr.P.L.A. No. 11 of 2011, title "The State v. Shamir alias Rehman" and through instant Review Petition, has sought review of the Para No. 15 of judgment dated 21-9-2011, rendered by this Court in Cr. P.L.As. Nos. 10 of 2011, 11 of 2011 and 8 of 2011 in which, on behalf of learned Advocate-General, a concession was recorded with regard to the statement of accused made before the Police Officer under section 21(H) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 that the same is not admissible in evidence under the law.
• 2. The contention of the learned Advocate-General is that he had rendered assistance to the Court in view of the legal position of the confessional statement of an accused before the Police Officer and the same was legal duty of the law officer and it was not concessional statement in any manner at all nor he intends so. He contends further, that he had not made any concessional statement and the same be not treated as such. He emphasized that he was under legal obligation to answer the query of the court in its true legal perspective and such statement cannot be taken as it has been made conceding statement.
• 3. We have heard the learned Advocate-General at length and the relevant judgment has also been perused.
• 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, as an officer of the court, have to assist the court on law points in the spirit of principle of law. The acceptance of legal position of a counsel is not concession to favour an accused. The concession in fact and conceding of legal position is not one and the same thing and is not a concession to have any legal consequence. The learned Advocate-General, Principal Officer of the court, is under legal obligation to assist the court properly on the question of law which is neither a concession extended by him nor favour or dis-favour to accused or an individual.
• 7. In the light of above legal and constitutional position, the learned Advocate General, could not conceal the legal position and have rightly assisted the court on the legal premises. The answer of the Advocate-General on a Court query was not concession nor it can be treated as concession of law and fact. The court has appreciated the assistance and the phrase contained in Para 15 would not convey the meaning of concession at all but the matter relates to the correct position of law which can be submitted to court or executive authority and will not carry any adverse effect.

Judgment & Decree