SH. MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs STATE
This review petition was filed by the petitioner seeking review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment affirming his conviction and death sentence under Sections 302(a) and 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The petitioner contended that his application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for additional evidence should have been allowed and that his sentence should be reduced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the request for additional evidence under Section 540 Cr.P.C. had already been thoroughly considered and rightly rejected, as Section 540 cannot be used to prolong proceedings or undermine trial court judgments. Furthermore, under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, review in criminal proceedings lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reaffirmed that it will not interfere with the quantum of sentence in review where no material evidence was missed or misread.
- What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of a review petition in criminal proceedings?
- Can an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence be allowed for the sole purpose of creating doubts in the prosecution case?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the quantum of sentence in a review petition when the original judgment properly evaluated all evidence?
- Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 188, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXVI, Supreme Court Rules 1980
Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J.--Petitioner, Sh. Muhammad Amjad, seeks review of this Court's judgment dated 20.2.2003 reported as Sh. Muhammad Amjad u. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704), whereby his Criminal Appeal No, 352 of 2002, against the judgment of High Court was dismissed.
2. Learned trial Judge, Anti Terrorism Court No, 3, Karachi, convicted the petitioner under Sections 302(a), 365-A PPC read with Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to death on both counts. This finding was affirmed by High Court and by this Court as well.
3. Two grounds have been urged in support of this Review Petition. Firstly, it is contended that application moved by the petitioner before this Court under Section 540 Cr.P.C. for recording additional evidence of the representative of Edhi Welfare Trust should have been allowed for doing complete justice in the matter, secondly, it is urged that keeping in view the evidence brought on record, the petitioner at the most could be sentenced for imprisonment for life and not death.
4. As regards first contention, it is noted that this point was raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal and was comprehensively dealt with in Paras Nos, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment and in Paras Nos, 15 and 16 the following was observed: A perusal of Section 540 Cr.P.C. shows that Court has power to examine, to recall and re- examine any person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. It is noted that just decision of the case will depend upon the circumstances of each case". It is not the requirement of law that whenever such application is made, it shall, under all circumstances, be granted, nor perversity in the system of criminal administration of justice can be permitted to be introduced to defeat the known established process of justice. The object of Section 540 Cr.P.C. is to defend the interest of justice and not to defeat it. Such application cannot be allowed when the sole object is to diminish the sanctity of trial Court and to create anomalies for creating dents in the prosecution version.
In the instant case, the case was registered at Police Station Civil Line and not at Police Station, Darakhshan. Neither before trial Court nor High Court this plea was raised. First time, it has been raised before this Court with sole object to prolong the proceedings and to create doubts about the judgments delivered by trial Court and affirmed by High Court. The application is totally misconceived and is dismissed."
It is thus clear that the point now raised was considered in depth and was repelled. We do not find any merit in this plea and reject it.
5. As regards second contention, it is noted that Article 188 of the Constitution empowers this Court to review its judgment/order subject to the provisions of any Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and of any rules made by this Court. According to Order XXVI of this Court's Rules of 1980, review can be made in criminal proceedings on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The expression "Error apparent on the face of the record" controls the exercise of such powers and it means that the error shall be so apparent and glaring, that. no Court would permit it to remain a part of the proceedings. It shall be absolutely significant and must emanate from the record on the basis of its own existence and not be the result of analytical logic and scrutiny of the evidence. The plea that exposition of law was wrong or incorrect conclusion was drawn as a result of scrutiny of the evidence, does not constitute a valid ground for review. An error apparent on the face of record manifestly be of a nature that, if ignored, complete justice could not be done.
6. In the instant case, the entire evidence was dilated upon in comprehensive manner and neither any material fact was ignored nor it is a case of misreading or non reading of the evidence. Legal sentence has been awarded to the petitioner and this Court normally does not interfere in review with the quantum of sentence, if the same has been imposed having taken into consideration all the material available on record and keeping in view the intrinsic value of the evidence produced by the prosecution. It was a brutal murder and the crime was committed by the petitioner and the petitioner alone. There is no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed.