P (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Appellant‑-Petitioner Versus CROWN — ‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rashid, C. J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Appellant‑-Petitioner Versus CROWN — ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Rashid, C. J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Appellant‑-Petitioner Versus CROWN — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ismat Ullah Khan, Advocate, Federal Court, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Federal Court‑Not a Court to rectify technical errors. It is not the function of the Federal Court to rectify any technical errors which might have crept into the judgment of the High Court, the Federal Court will take notice of technical errors only if injustice has been caused owing to a disregard of the forms of legal process or due to a violation of some principle of natural justice.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL RASHID, C. J.‑The petitioner was sentenced to death, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Rawalpindi. His appeal was dis missed by the High Court. The concluding words of the judg ment, so far as they are material to this petition, are as follows : "We accordingly maintain his conviction and sentence of death and dismiss his appeal". It was not stated in the judgment that the sentence of death was "confirmed". After the decision of the High Court, a petition for special leave to appeal was presented to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was dismissed on the 3rd February, 1950. The petitioner moved the Provincial Government, under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the sentence of death awarded to him be remitted as he had been falsely implicated. This application appears to have been dismissed by the Provincial Government. The petitioner then preferred a petition, under section 561 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the High Court praying that it may be declared that there was no legal confirmation of the death sentence. This petition was dismissed by the High Court with the following order :‑‑ "Mr. Ismatullah admits that the matter has been before the Federal Court. Dismissed." The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Provincial Government should have consulted the High Court as to whether the application of the petitioner, under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be granted or refused. There is no force in this contention. Whenever an application is made to the Provincial Government for the suspension or remission of the sentence, the Provincial Govern ment may require the presiding judge of the Court by which the conviction was had or confirmed to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused. It is not obligatory on the Provincial Government to consult the High Court in this respect. The argument put forward on behalf of the defence that the words "may require" impose an obligati6n on Government to consult the High Court is entirely untenable. The counsel for the petitioner asked us to hold that the working of the concluding paragraph of the judgment of the High Court was defective and that the words "we accordingly maintain his conviction and sentence of death and dismiss his appeal" did not amount to confirmation of the death sentence under the provisions of sections 374 and 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not the function of this Court to rectify any technical errors which might have crept into the judgment of the High Court. This Court will take notice of technical errors only if injustice has been caused owing to a disregard of the forms of legal process or due to a violation of some principle of natural justice. We, therefore, dismiss this petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. A. H. Petition dismissed. Attorney for Petitioner:‑--Zia‑ud‑Din Ahmad.