Muhammad Afzal vs The State, etc.
The petitioner filed a petition impugning an order of the High Court which required the convict to surrender himself before the petition and criminal miscellaneous application could be taken up for hearing. The core legal question was whether the High Court could lawfully direct a convict to surrender before entertaining or hearing the matter, and whether surrender is a condition precedent based on the cited precedent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the cited precedent was distinguishable on facts, as the present case involved a direction to surrender prior to hearing rather than a dismissal of a suspension of sentence application, and the administrative overruling of an office objection did not preclude the judicial requirement to surrender. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. The key principle laid down is that courts may direct a convict to surrender in accordance with established judicial practice when considering appeals or related applications, distinct from specific factual scenarios where suspension of sentence is separately adjudicated.
- Whether surrender by a convict is a necessary prerequisite before a High Court hears a petition or application?
- Does an administrative order overruling an office objection prevent a court from directing a convict to surrender on the judicial side?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a High Court order directing a petitioner to surrender before proceeding with a case?
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. -- The petitioner impugns the order passed by the High Court dated 15.10.2012 which is in the following terms:- "While referring judgment reported in 2012 SCM R 997 (Mazhar Ahmad v. The State and another), learned counsel submits that the appellant is present in Court. He has not surrendered himself as per judgment dated 15.12.2012, passed by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Chopra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. He is directed to surrender himself first and then this petition as well as Criminal Miscellaneous will be taken up.
Adjourned".
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order and record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case titled Mazhar Ahmad v. The State and another (2012 SCM R 997) to contend that surrender by a convict is not a condition precedent to his appeal being entertained. We have gone through the cited judgment and note that it is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the cited case, the convict had been denied relief as his application for suspension of sentence was dismissed. In the present case the Court has not decided the application for suspension of sentence but has directed the petitioner to surrender and then his petition will be heard. It is also to be noted that in the present case the office objection raised by the High Court was over-ruled by an order dated 10.10.2012 on the administrative side.
Learned counsel has argued that in view of the said order, the impugned order could not have been passed. This submission is misconceived because the order passed on the administrative side only related to the office objection which was over-ruled. The application for suspension of sentence had to be heard on the judicial side. The order passed by the Court, reproduced above, is consistent with the long established practice and does not require any interference.
3. This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.