2002 PLP R380 (SCMR)
AYYAZ BAIG alias BAU CHUHANWALA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP R380 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhamrnad Bashir Jehangiri, Actg. CJ., Munir A. Sheikh and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ |
| Parties | AYYAZ BAIG alias BAU CHUHANWALA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP R380 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP R380 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhamrnad Bashir Jehangiri, Actg. CJ., Munir A. Sheikh and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP R380 (SCMR) (AYYAZ BAIG alias BAU CHUHANWALA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 2nd October, 2001.
- 2. At the hearing of the Petition for Leave to Appeal Kh. Sultan Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared for the petitioner and addressed the Court on merits of the case at length, which was, however, dismissed. Co‑accused Sajid Ali alias Kaloo and Shahbaz alias Shazi had also filed petitions against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and compensation of Rs.50,000 each, which were also dismissed through the said judgment.
- 4. Today when this petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not appear to argue the same. However, learned Advocate -on‑Record Mr. Abut Asim Jafri requested for an adjournment which was declined as no sufficient ground was urged for the absence of the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court.
- 5. The grounds urged in support of the review petition, essentially seek re‑hearing of the petition for leave to appeal, which cannot be permitted I under the law. Needless to observe, the scope of jurisdiction of review by this Court is restricted. At any rate, re‑hearing of a case is not permissible in exercise of review jurisdiction within the contemplation of Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. As the learned Advocate‑on‑Record is not inclined to render any assistance in this petition, we have carefully examined the grounds urged in support of the review petition. Perusal of the impugned judgment suggests that all grounds raised by the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner were duly considered and dealt with at length. As the impugned judgment does not suffer from any misreading of the material on record or any other legal infirmity nor is it shown that there is an error of law or jurisdiction apparent on the face of record, we are not inclined to take a different view. The submission that dispensation of law in the award of, sentence of death is erroneous or that the Court has gone wrong in application of any principle of law tct the facts of a particular case, in our view, does not constitute a valid ground for review. It may further be ‑observed that it is well‑settled that in criminal matters this Court will not generally interfere in review with the quantum of sentence, if a legal sentence has been imposed or upheld after due consideration of all the relevant circumstances. In that behalf reference may be made to the cases reported as Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor (PLD 1958 SC 201), Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State (PLD 1979 SC 741), Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem (PLD 1991 SC 905) and Abdul Ghaffar‑Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali (PLD 1998 SC 363).
Headnotes / Summary
(On review. from judgment of this Court, dated 19‑4‑2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 147(L) of 1998). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI; R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑ Sentence‑‑‑Grounds urged in support of the review petition essentially sought re‑hearing of the petition for leave to appeal already dismissed, which could not be permitted under the law‑‑‑All grounds raised for the accused were duly considered and dealt with at length‑‑‑Impugned judgment did not suffer from any misreading of the material on record or any other legal infirmity, nor any error of law or jurisdiction apparent on the face of record was shown‑‑‑Contention that dispensation of law in the award of sentence of death was erroneous or that the Court had gone wrong in application of any principle of law to the facts of a particular case did not constitute a valid ground for review‑‑‑Supreme Court in criminal matters would not generally interfere in review with the quantum of sentence if legal sentence had been imposed or upheld after due consideration of all the relevant circumstances‑‑ Review petition was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor PLD 1958 SC 201; Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741; Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem PLD 1991 SC 905 and Abdul Ghaffar‑Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali PLD 1998 SC 363 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Scope of jurisdiction of review by Supreme Court is restricted‑‑‑Re‑hearing .of a case is not permissible in exercise of review jurisdiction within the contemplation of Art. 188 of the Constitution read with O. XXVI, R. 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. ‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Review‑‑ Supreme Court in criminal matters will not generally interfere in review with the quantum of sentence, if a legal sentence has been imposed or upheld after due consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor PLD 1958 SC 201; Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741; Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem PLD 1991 SC 905 and Abdul Ghaffar‑Abdul Rahman v. Asghar Ali PLD 1998 SC 363 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑Petitioner‑convict seeks review of the judgment dated 19‑4‑2000, whereby his Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 147(L) of 1998, assailing the conviction and sentence of death as also compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for committing murder of deceased Muhammad Arif on or about 2‑10‑1992 at 2‑45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Civil Lines Police Station Gujrat, was dismissed.
2. At the hearing of the Petition for Leave to Appeal Kh. Sultan Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared for the petitioner and addressed the Court on merits of the case at length, which was, however, dismissed. Co‑accused Sajid Ali alias Kaloo and Shahbaz alias Shazi had also filed petitions against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and compensation of Rs.50,000 each, which were also dismissed through the said judgment.
3. Though the review petition appears to have been filed in office far back as 8‑5‑2000, the same has been listed before this Bench for the first time after a lapse of seventeen months, which calls for serious attention of all concerned with the Roster Branch. We are of the view that review petitions, assailing the correctness of the judgments involving death sentences must be processed on priority basis in that on account of undue delay on the one hand the convict has to remain in death cell while on the other hand jail authorities face serious problems for housing the condemned prisoners. Likewise, delay in deciding such petitions on the part of the Court leads to a wrong impression that the convicts are able to manoeuvre postponement of execution of death sentences by merely presenting petitions for review irrespective of their merits, in Office.
4. Today when this petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not appear to argue the same. However, learned Advocate -on‑Record Mr. Abut Asim Jafri requested for an adjournment which was declined as no sufficient ground was urged for the absence of the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court.
5. The grounds urged in support of the review petition, essentially seek re‑hearing of the petition for leave to appeal, which cannot be permitted I under the law. Needless to observe, the scope of jurisdiction of review by this Court is restricted. At any rate, re‑hearing of a case is not permissible in exercise of review jurisdiction within the contemplation of Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. As the learned Advocate‑on‑Record is not inclined to render any assistance in this petition, we have carefully examined the grounds urged in support of the review petition. Perusal of the impugned judgment suggests that all grounds raised by the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner were duly considered and dealt with at length. As the impugned judgment does not suffer from any misreading of the material on record or any other legal infirmity nor is it shown that there is an error of law or jurisdiction apparent on the face of record, we are not inclined to take a different view. The submission that dispensation of law in the award of, sentence of death is erroneous or that the Court has gone wrong in application of any principle of law tct the facts of a particular case, in our view, does not constitute a valid ground for review. It may further be ‑observed that it is well‑settled that in criminal matters this Court will not generally interfere in review with the quantum of sentence, if a legal sentence has been imposed or upheld after due consideration of all the relevant circumstances. In that behalf reference may be made to the cases reported as Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor (PLD 1958 SC 201), Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State (PLD 1979 SC 741), Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem (PLD 1991 SC 905) and Abdul Ghaffar‑Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali (PLD 1998 SC 363).
6. Review Petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed with direction to the office to intimate all concerned as required I under the law. N.H.Q./A‑175/S Review petition dismissed