2005 PLP 330 (SCMR)
Mirza TAHIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 330 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Review Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chairman, Justices Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Dr. Allama Khalid Mehmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members |
| Parties | Mirza TAHIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 330 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 330 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Review Jurisdiction bench comprising: Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chairman, Justices Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Dr. Allama Khalid Mehmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 330 (SCMR) (Mirza TAHIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 2004.
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment, dated 1‑12‑2003 of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.38(S)/1998). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 203‑F & 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980 O.XXVI, R.1‑‑ Review‑ of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Assailing of judgment passed by Federal Shariat Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Judgment of Federal Shariat Court was not under review and entire submissions being out of context, could not be taken into consideration‑‑‑All contentions were raised at the time of hearing of main appeal which were elaborately dealt with and discussed in the judgment under review‑‑‑Scope of review being limited did not allow re‑hearing or appreciation of evidence afresh ‑‑‑Review petition was dismissed. Shariah The Islamic Law; Book of Al‑Ahkam (Judgments) Chapt. 22; Holding Fast to the Quran and the Sunna and The State v. Sohail Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1990 FSC 29 ref. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑ By this review petition, petitioner seeks review of judgment, dated 1‑12 2003 of this Court whereby Criminal Appeal No.38((S) of 1998 filed by petitioner was dismissed.
2. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of provisions of section 439, Cr.P.C. and Article 203‑DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it was mandatory for the learned Federal Shariat Court to issue show‑cause notice to petitioner before enhancing his sentence from imprisonment for life to death. According to him, since the above provisions of above law have not been followed by the learned Federal Shariat Court in letter and spirit as such the entire proceedings stood vitiated and the sentence of death is liable to be set aside. He vehemently stressed that major penalty of death would not be. justified in this case as the judgment of Federal Shariat Court whereby the sentence of petitioner was enhanced was a judgment at variance. The learned two Judges of the Federal Shariat Court enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to normal penalty of death whereas the third Judge accepted his appeal and acquitted him. In such eventuality, it being as mitigating circumstance, the punishment of imprisonment for life would have been the proper sentence. In support, he cited Hadith of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) from Book tiled as "Shari`ah The Islamic Law" whereby punishment of Hadd is prevented in cases where doubt persists. .He also referred "Chapter 22 of the Book of Al- Ahkam (Judgments)". wherein it has been mentioned that while taking decision there should be no difference of opinion. He also referred Chapter 26 of Book titled "Holding Fast to the Qur`an and the Sunnah. He also placed reliance in the case of The State v. Sohail Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1990 Federal Shariat Court 29.
3. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the referred Hadith and case‑law. As regards the impugned judgment, learned counsel could not refer to even a single error apparent on the face of record t1ecessitating the review of impugned judgment. The entire arguments advancer: by him were made on the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which is not under review before us, as such, entire submissions being out of context cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, all these contentions were raised at the time of hearing of main appeal which were elaborately dealt with and discussed in the impugned judgment. The scope of review is limited and it does not allow re hearing, re‑appraisal or appreciation of evidence afresh.
4. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any ground justifying review of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. M.H./T‑7/S Petition dismissed.