MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Another vs The STATE
These review petitions arise from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing petitions for special leave to appeal against sentences of death. The review petitions themselves were barred by 73 days, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the delay. The core legal question concerns whether the review petitions are maintainable despite the delay and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a presidential general amnesty circular granting commutation of death sentences. The Supreme Court held that the review petitions are barred by limitation and that the circular is inapplicable as the death sentences were not pending execution at the relevant time, while noting that review is not the appropriate remedy for such a plea. The Court established the principle that delay without satisfactory explanation warrants dismissal of review petitions and that a general amnesty applying to death sentences pending execution at a specific date cannot cover sentences confirmed at a later date.
- Whether review petitions filed with a delay and without satisfactory explanation are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation?
- Does a presidential general amnesty commuting death sentences pending execution on a specific date apply to death sentences confirmed after that date?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN ARMED, J.-These two review Petitions are from an order of this Court dated the 24th of July, 1975, dismissing on merits the petitioners' petitions for special leave to appeal sent from Jail.
2. The petitions for leave had become barred by 532 days and 178 days but as they involved sentences of death, the delay had been condoned and the petitions considered and disposed of on merits.
3. The present review petitions again are barred by 73 days. There is no satisfactory explanation at all for this delay. Admittedly the petitioners came to know of the decision of this Court on the 23rd of August, 1975, and they filed the present review petitions on the 24th of October, 1975. The only explanation for the delay between the 23rd of August, 1975 and 24th of October 1975 was that the petitioners had' asked for permission to engage a counsel for arguing the petitions and they waited for a reply all this time.
4. The only ground for review urged before us is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a general amnesty granted by the President in the year 1971. An ordinary copy of Secret Circular No. 8/11/71-Ptns, dated the 21st of December, 1971, relating to the general amnesty has been produced before us in support of the contention. The Circular runs as follows :---- "President has been pleased to commute to transportation for life all death sentences awarded by ordinary criminal Courts which are pending execution."
5. The Circular does not apply to the present case inasmuch as the death sentence was confirmed by the High Court only on the 25th of June, 1973, and it was not pending execution on the 21st of September, 1971. In any event this is not a ground for review. The petitioners, if so advised, may approach the appropriate authorities.
6. The petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation.