2004 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 302(6)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.425 & 426(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Alternate remedy‑‑‑Implementation of judgment of Trial Court‑‑‑Trial Court had convicted accused/ respondents under S.302(b), P.P.C. and such conviction was upheld up to High Court‑‑ Petitioner/complainant in his Constitutional petition had sought a direction to the Police to arrest convicts in implementation of judgment of High Court‑‑‑Accused/convicts were on bail after suspension of their sentence when their appeal was dismissed by High Court‑‑‑Under provisions of S.425, Cr.P.C., copy of judgment of High Court was to be certified to the lower Court which had originally passed judgment and same Court had to act upon directions/findings of High Court given in appeal‑‑‑Section 426(3), Cr.P.C. provided that period during which convicts were released after suspension of their sentence would be excluded in computing the term for which they were so sentenced‑‑ Petitioner, in circumstance had an alternate remedy by moving Trial Court or Sessions Judge to act in accordance with provisions of Ss.425 & 426(3), Cr.P.C., who were duty bound to issue warrants of commitment against convicts on receiving copy of judgment of High Court passed in appeal‑‑‑Petitioner had alternate remedy and Constitutional petition being misconceived, was not maintainable. Rafique Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents Nso.2 and 3 to arrest respondents Nos.4 and 5 forthwith in implementation of the judgment of the learned trial Court and this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's son Bashir Ahmad was murdered and F.I.R. No. 125 was registered on 20‑12‑1990 at Police Station Mahmood Kot District Muzaffargarh under section 302/34, P.P.C. against the accused‑respondent. The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 21‑10‑1991 convicted the respondents under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Against the said judgment appeal was filed which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 9‑9‑2003.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the copy of the judgment has been sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh on 27‑10‑2003 for the execution of the sentence but so far no action has been taken against the respondents in spite of the fact that copies of the same have been supplied to them and the police has not arrested respondents Nos.4 and 5, as such the petitioner has no other alternate and efficacious remedy except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 were on bail after suspension of their sentence when Criminal Appeal No.337 of 1991 filed by them was dismissed by this Court on 9‑9‑2003. Under section 425; Cr.P.C. copy of the judgment of this Court is to be certified to the lower Court which has originally passed the judgment and the same Court has to act upon the directions/findings of this Court made in the appeal. According to subsection (3) of section 426, Cr.P.C. the period during which convict was released after suspension of his sentence shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. Hence, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by moving the learned trial Court or learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh to act in accordance with the above provisions, who are duty bound to issue warrants of commitment against the convict on receiving copy of the judgment of this Court passed in appeal. Hence it cannot be said that petitioner has no alternate remedy.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is misconceived and being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G‑20/L Petition dismissed.