Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 11‑R of 1979, decided on 22nd January; 1979.
(On appeal from the order dated 15‑1‑1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in W. P. No. 202 of 1979).
----Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Points raised in petition already considered in earlier petition on same subject in respect of same accused and repelled by Supreme Court‑Petition dismissed.
Mst. Nasim Akhtar in person. .
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1979.
‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑1‑1979 dismissing the writ petition filed by Ghulam Jilam, husband of the petitioner (W. P. No. 202 of 1979) urging interference in the matter of mercy petition moved by him after his conviction and sentence of death in a murder case was maintained up to this Court.
The convict (Ghulam Jilani) was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, which sentence was confirmed by the Lahore High Court. He filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court through Jail. Leave was granted to consider the question of sentence, but the appeal was ultimately rejected on 6th May, 1977. After dismissal of his appeal by this Court he appears to have filed a mercy petition before the President of Pakistan, which too was rejected. He then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court where he urged that his mercy petition had to be disposed of by the President of Pakistan on the advice of the Prime Minister and since there was no Prime Minister the President's order rejecting his mercy petition was not valid. This contention, however, was repelled by the High Court relying on this Court's judgment in the case of Begum Nusrat Bhutto (P L D 1977 S C 657). It was further observed that under Article 45 of the Constitution the power of mercy was to be exercised by the President and as he bad dismissed the mercy petition, the order could not be described as without lawful authority. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the above‑mentioned order.
The counsel of the petitioner is absent but she is present in person and has been heard. We have also ourselves carefully gone through the petition for leave to appeal and perused the record of the case. In the petition for leave to appeal the ground raised before the High Court has been reiterated besides raising some other questions.
All the points raised in this petition have already been considered by us while disposing of C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978 and repelled. For the reasons given therein, this petition must fail and is accordingly hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer