P L D 2004 Supreme Court 32 (PLP)

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.

Petitioner, Sh. Muhammad Amjad, seeks review of this Court's judgment dated 20-2-2003 reported as Sh. Muhammad Amjad v.. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704), whereby his Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2002, against the judgment of High Court, was dismissed.

2. Learned trial Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.3, Karachi, convicted the petitioner under sections 302(a), 365-A, P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to death on both counts. This finding was affirmed by High Court and by this Court as well.

3. Two grounds have been urged in support of this Review Petition. I Firstly, it is contended that application moved by the petitioner before this Court under section 540, Cr.P.C. for recording additional evidence of the A representative of Edhi Welfare Trust should have been allowed for doing complete justice in the matter; secondly, it is urged that keeping in view the evidence brought on record, the petitioner at the most could be sentenced for imprisonment for life and not death.

4. As regards first contention, it is noticed that this point was raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal and was comprehensively dealt with in paras. Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment and in paras. Nos.l5 and 16 the following was observed:--

15. A perusal of section 540, Cr.P.C. shows that Court has power to examine, to recall and re-examine any person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. It is noted that "just decision of the case will depend upon the circumstances of each case". It is not the requirement of law that whenever such application is made, it shall, under all circumstances, be granted, nor perversity in the system of criminal administration of justice can be permitted to be introduced to defeat the known established process of justice. The object of section 540, Cr.P.C. is to defend the interest of justice and not to defeat it. Such application cannot be allowed w11c:;i the sole object is to diminish the sanctity of trial Court and to create anomalies for creating dents in the prosecution version.

16. In the instant case, the case was registered at Police Station Civil Lines and not at Police Station Darakhshan. Neither before trial Court nor High Court this plea was raised. First time, it has been raised before this Court with sole object to prolong the proceedings and to crest: doubts about the judgments delivered by trial Court and affirmed by High Court. The application is totally misconceived and is dismissed." It is thus clear that the point now raised was considered in depth It and was repelled. We do not find any merit in this plea and reject it.

5. As regards second contention, it is noted that Article 188 of the Constitution empowers this Court to review its judgment/order subject to the provisions of any Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and of any rules made by this Court. According to Order XXVI of this Court's Rules of 1980, review can be made in criminal proceedings on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The expression "Error apparent on the face of the record" controls the exercise of such powers and it means that the error shall be so apparent and glaring, that no Court would permit it to remain a part of the proceedings. It shall be absolutely significant and must emanate from the record on the basis of its own existence and not be the result of analytical logic and scrutiny of the evidence. The plea that exposition of law was wrong or incorrect conclusion was drawn as a result of scrutiny of the evidence, does not constitute a valid ground for review, An error apparent on the face of record manifestly be of a nature that, if ignored, complete justice could not be done.

6. In the instant case, the entire evidence was dilated upon in comprehensive manner and neither any material fact was ignored nor it is a case of misreading or non-reading of the evidence. Legal sentence has been awarded to the petitioner and this Court normally does not interfere I in review with the quantum of sentence, if the same has been imposed having taken into consideration all the material available on record and 'F keeping in view the intrinsic value of the evidence produced by the prosecution. It was a brutal murder and the crime was committed by the petitioner and the petitioner alone. There is no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-921/S Review petition dismissed.