P L D 2005 Lahore 328 (PLP)

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Lawful decision taken within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, can neither be interfered with nor can be substituted in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Syed Tanvir Sohail Shah for Petitioner. Ch. Salimul Haq, A.A.‑G. for the State. Instant Constitutional petition seeks order dated 8‑10‑2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court No.1 Anti- Terrorism, Rawalpindi, whereby application of the petitioner for permission to waive/compound offences under sections 302/397/393, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 was dismissed.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner being complainant of F.I.R. No.57 of 1998 dated 7‑2‑1998 registered under the above noted offences, with police station New Town, Rawalpindi against Muhammad Amin, Zar Khan and Kameen Khan, filed an application as noted above, before A.T.C. with the averment that by intervention of respectables, he and all the legal heirs of deceased Zameer Ahmed have pardoned the convicts, thus their sentences be waived. Challan of the case in F.I.R. No.57 of 1998 was taken cognizance by the learned Judge, Special Court Anti‑Terrorism, Rawalpindi and at the conclusion of the trail vide judgment dated 31-1‑2000 Muhammad Amin was convicted and sentenced to death under section 302-B, P.P.C, under section 324, P.P.C he was awarded sentence for 20 years R.I. with fine of Rs.50,000 payable to each injured and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year, under section 398, P.P.C he was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. and under section 7, A.T.A. 1997 to death. Zar Khan was also convicted under section 398, P.P.C to undergo a sentence of 7 years' R.I. whereas the third accused Kameen Khan was acquitted.

3. Muhammad Amin convict filed an appeal before this Court and then leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, but the same were dismissed vide judgments dated 13‑9‑2001 and 19‑3‑2002, respectively. Review petition was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28‑4‑2003.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the main offence under section 302, P.P.C was compoundable, the offence under section 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act would also be deemed to be compoundable. Relying on the cases of Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others v. The State (2003 SCMR 663) and Rana Dil Muhammad v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 736), it was contended that request for waiving the sentence of the convicts was erroneously turned down by the learned Judge Special Court Anti‑Terrorism.

5. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, Muhammad Amin convict was also held guilty of offence punishable under section 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 by the trial Court vide, judgment dated 31‑1‑2000 for creating terror, sense of fear and insecurity for the public at large by causing death of the deceased and injuries to the P.Ws. The judgment dated 31‑1‑2000 was concurrently upheld up to the Honourable Supreme Court: Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since main offence under offence under section 302, P.P.C is compoundable, the offence under section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act will also be considered to have also become compoundable, has not impressed me because the latter offence is more grave and severe, being against society, as compared to the offence against the person of the deceased. Section 345, Cr.P.C contemplates the) offences which are compoundable and offence under section 7 of Anti‑Terrorism Act is not included therein. Subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C creates a specific bar for compounding of offences not mentioned therein and reads as under:‑‑ "(7). No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. " Besides clear and unambiguous language of section 345(7), Cr.P.C the Honourable Supreme Court very graciously considered this very aspect of the matter, in the latest alighted judgment dated 27‑4‑2004 in the case of Muhammad Rawab v. The State (2004 SCMR 1170) and graciously mandated with emphasis in the following words namely:‑ "The legislature hay laid down in this section the test for determining the classes 'of offences which concern individuals only as distinguished from those which have reference to the interests of the State and Courts of law cannot go beyond that test and substitute of it one of their own. It is against public policy to compound a non‑compoundable offence, keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound. No offences shall be compounded except where the, provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C are satisfied as to all matters mentioned in the section".

6. For the reasons noted above and respectfully following the latest view in the case of Muhammad Rawab (supra) no illegality, arbitrariness) or fancifulness could be pointed out in the order dated 8‑10‑2004 passed by respondent No.

1. Even otherwise a lawful decision taken within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction can neither be interfered nor can bell substituted in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, hence this petition having no merit in it is accordingly dismissed in limine. N.H.Q/J‑63/L Petition dismissed.