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. 538 of 1978, decided on 7th December, 1978.
(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.
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Asif Jan, Additional Advocate‑General (Punjab) and Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 1978.
‑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.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer