2007 PLP 116 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMAD and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 116 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMAD and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Hifz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 2006.
- Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate-General, Punjab for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-9-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 1997).
S. 10(4)(3)
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.38
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.12
Procedural and substantive law
Scope
Trial Court convicted accused/appellant under S.10(4) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced him to life imprisonment
High Court upheld the finding of Trial Court
Accused contended that, he was not to be charged and convicted under S.10(4) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the reason that the said section was introduced through amendment in December, 1997 whereas offence had taken place on 5-6-1997; that S.10(3) of the Ordinance was applicable in the case of accused and that accused was not to be tried by Anti-Terrorism Court as offence was committed by accused before promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Accused had committed offence on 5-6-1997 when according to S.10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, punishment for offence committed by, accused was to extend to 25 Years and whipping numbering 30 stripes but S.10(4) of the Ordinance was introduced after date of commission of offence, hence, no punishment was to be awarded under said section, being in glaring violation of Art.12 of. the Constitution
Person accused of having committed an offence before commencement of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to be tried by the Court constituted under the said Act but punishment awarded was to be in accordance with law prevailing at the time when offence was committed; provided the offence otherwise constituted a terrorist act
Trial of accused by Anti-Terrorism Court was in accordance with law as being protected by S.35 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--Imprisonment for life awarded to accused was reduced to imprisonment for 20 years.? ? Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate-General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Maqbool Ahmed and Riaz Ahmed, the convicts under section 10(4), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, etcetera, have filed this appeal where leave was granted on 27-1-2006 by this Court to consider the quantum of sentence alone.
2. Both were tried and convicted for committing Zina-bil-Jabr liable to Tazir with Mst. Naseem Begum aged 16/17 with reference to F.I.R. No.240 dated 5-6-1997 of Police Station City Pakpattan. The charge was framed under section 10(4) of the Ordinance and the trial was conducted by Anti-Terrorism Court No.II, Multan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made two-fold submission. One that the trial could not be conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Court constituted in August, 1997 and second that the accused could not be charged and convicted under section 10(4) of the Ordinance, for, the section is introduced through amendment in December, 1997.
4. In the instant case the offence has taken place on 5-6-1997 when, according to section 10(3) of Ordinance VII of 1979 the punishment of the offence was imprisonment for a term which could extend to 25 years and whipping numbering thirty stripes. So far as section 10(4) of the Ordinance is concerned, it was introduced in December, 1997 and hence no punishment could be awarded under the said section, being in glaring violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.
5. The objection regarding the conduct of trial by Special Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is unfounded. Any person accused of having committed an offence before the commencement of Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 could be tried by the Court constituted under the Act but the punishment awarded shall be in accordance with law prevailing at the time when the offence was committed; provided the offence otherwise constituted a Terrorist Act. We are of the considered view that the trial by Anti-Terrorism Court was in accordance with law, protected by section 38 of the Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997. However, section 38 of the Act read with Article 12 of the Constitution would certainly render the punishment awarded under section 10(4) of the Ordinance void ab initio, with reference to the date of occurrence and the date of insertion of section 10(4) in the Ordinance.
6. Consequently, while partially accepting the appeal, the imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant is reduced to imprisonment for a term which shall extend to 20 years with the infliction of 30 stripes each and a compensation of Rs.50,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., to be paid to the victim. S.M.B/M-151/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly allowed.