1979 PLP 302 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 302 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 45‑Mercy petition‑Commutation of sentence‑Mercy petition previously filed dismissed‑Mercy unless extended on basis of alleged subsequent petition, order already passed, held, must hold field‑Discretion of President in mercy petition‑Not liable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑No cognizance of subsequent petition for mercy, held further, can be taken in circum stances. Mercy petition‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Nasim Hasan Shah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 302 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 302 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 45‑Mercy petition‑Commutation of sentence‑Mercy petition previously filed dismissed‑Mercy unless extended on basis of alleged subsequent petition, order already passed, held, must hold field‑Discretion of President in mercy petition‑Not liable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑No cognizance of subsequent petition for mercy, held further, can be taken in circum stances. Mercy petition‑Sentence. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Nasim Hasan Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 302 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1978.
- Asif Jan, Additional Advocate‑General (Punjab) and Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition was argued along with C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978. Besides adopting the arguments presented by Mr. Asghar Ali, Advocate, Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record submitted that the petitioner had moved a mercy petition before the Prime Minister who ordered stay of execution on 21‑5‑1977, but he is not in a position to state what further orders have been passed on this application. He submits that another petition was moved towards the end of 1977 by. the sisters and mother of the petitioner and they are also unaware of any order having been passed thereon. He further submits that the petitioner moved the Provincial Government for mercy, but no action has been taken on this application.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 4‑10‑78 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. (7) 1978).
Art. 45‑Mercy petition‑Commutation of sentence‑Mercy petition previously filed dismissed‑Mercy unless extended on basis of alleged subsequent petition, order already passed, held, must hold field‑Discretion of President in mercy petition‑Not liable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑No cognizance of subsequent petition for mercy, held further, can be taken in circum stances. [Mercy petition‑Sentence]. Muhammad Sadiq and another's case C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978 ref. Asif Jan, Additional Advocate‑General (Punjab) and Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition was argued along with C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978. Besides adopting the arguments presented by Mr. Asghar Ali, Advocate, Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record submitted that the petitioner had moved a mercy petition before the Prime Minister who ordered stay of execution on 21‑5‑1977, but he is not in a position to state what further orders have been passed on this application. He submits that another petition was moved towards the end of 1977 by. the sisters and mother of the petitioner and they are also unaware of any order having been passed thereon. He further submits that the petitioner moved the Provincial Government for mercy, but no action has been taken on this application. It is quite clear that the mercy petition filed by the petitioner ha been dismissed at one stage and unless on the bass of the subsequent mercy petition said to have been filed, mercy is in fact, extended to the petitioner, and sentence of death commuted, the Order already passed must hold the field. In Muhammad Sadiq and another (C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978) it has been held that the discretion of the President in a mercy petition was not liable to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdic tion. No cognizance of the subsequent petition filed by the petitioner can be taken. This petition fails, and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.