1983 PLP C (PLC(CS))

Ali Aslam Jaffery for Appellant. Hassan Akbar, A. A.‑G. for Respondents. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant an A. S. I. posted at City Police Station, Hyderabad was convicted under Martial Law Regulation No. 34 by the Military Court for having committed rape on one Mst. Rehana alias Mairaj and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with 15 lashes and a fine of Rs. 10,

000. On mercy petition by his mother, the D. M. L. A. on compassionate grounds set aside appellant's conviction but directed that in view. of the gravity of the offence, the appellant could not be re‑instated in Police service The appellant then filed a petition before the Martial Law Administrator through the Inspector‑General of Police, Karachi. The matter was placed before the Martial Law Administrator Zone `C' who did not agree to the re‑instatement of the Ex‑A.S.I. Abdul Sami of Hyderabad and he was informed accordingly through the Home Department.. N The appellant had managed to register an F.I.R. against Mst. Rehana alias Mairaj and her‑ relations for offence under section 294, P.P.C. and the case was investigated and found to be false. No further action was, however, taken on that account against the appellant. It has now been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was pardoned by the D.M.L A. under section 143 (1) (i) of the Pakistan Army Act upon condition that the appellant shall not be re‑instated in the Police Department. Obviously this order has been accepted by the appellant. He however now relies upon the alleged opinion of the Law Department that this condition placing embargo on his re‑employment in the Police Department was not strictly in accordance with Law. Admittedly the appellant was tried for the offence of rape under M. L. R. 34 by the Military Court and the subsequent order of the D. M. L. A. was also passed under section 143 of the Pakistan Army Act. This matter had been referred to the Martial Law Administrator who had considered the petition of the appellant for re‑instatement in Police Department and rejected it. It is now being sought to set aside the orders passed by the D.M.L.A. on the ground that the condition attached to the acceptance of the pardon of remittance of the punishment awarded was against the law. It has however been rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that any Civil Court or Tribunal's jurisdiction is barred concerning any proceedings taken by the Military Court under the Pakistan Army Act or any Martial Law Regulation or order. This Tribunal cannot, therefore, express even an opinion on the legality or otherwise‑ of the' proceedings taken against the appellant or the condition attached to the grant of pardon. In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.