NAVEED HUSSAIN through Mother vs The STATE and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition filed by the mother of a condemned prisoner seeking the suspension of a death warrant issued by the trial court. The prisoner had been convicted of murder, and his conviction was upheld through the appellate hierarchy, including the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan. Following the dismissal of his mercy petition by the President of Pakistan, the trial court issued a black warrant for his execution. The core legal question was whether the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend an execution warrant after the convict had exhausted all legal remedies, including the appellate process and the constitutional mercy petition. The Court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to intervene in this instance. It reasoned that the powers under Section 561-A are not an alternative or additional remedy to be used when other avenues have been exhausted. The Court established the principle that it cannot sit as a revisional authority over the judgments of the apex court or the executive decisions of the President of Pakistan regarding mercy petitions.
- Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend a death warrant after the exhaustion of all appellate and mercy petition remedies?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to sit as a revisional court over the judgments of the Supreme Appellate Court?
- Are the powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to serve as an alternative or additional remedy after the finality of a conviction?
- Section 25(2), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 25, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Article 45, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Section 381, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judge ATC No,1 Gilgit vide judgment dated 31-08-2009 and was awarded death sentences and some other punishments maintained in the judgment of trial Court. Trial Court sent the case to this Court in terms of section 25(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 along with murder reference to this Court for confirmation or otherwise.
2. 2.The convict/appellant challenged the conviction by filing an appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. read with section 25 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, which was dismissed by this Court vide order/judgment dated 19-1-2016.
3. 3.The accused filed an appeal before the honourable apex Court challenging the validity and propriety of the judgment of this Court, but the apex Court also dismissed the appeal and conviction handed down by the trial Court and affirmed by this Court was upheld vide judgment date 15-06-2016.
4. 4.It is pertinent to mention here that accused escaped from the judicial custody from Skardu Jail and subsequently was arrested somewhere in down country and was committed to the custody in Adeyala Jail, Rawalpindi.
5. 5.As evident from the record provided by the learned counsel- for the petitioner, the condemned prisoner filed a mercy. petition under Article 45 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan before the President of Pakistan, which was not acceded and after rejection of mercy petition and the direction contained the judgment of honourable Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan, trial Court issued black warrant for execution of the accused in terms of section 381, Cr.P.C.
6. 6.On 06-01-2017, one Mst. Sakina, the mother of the condemned prisoner moved a misc petition bearing No,14/2017 for suspension of warrant of execution by the in charge Central Prison Adeyala Jail Rawalpindi, wherein date of execution, of the prisoner has been fixed for 10-01-2017 at 06:30 a.m.
7. 7.The case came before me on 06-01-2017 and following order was passed:- "The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for suspension of execution which is to be carried out by the authorities concerned of central prison Rawalpindi on 10-01-2016 at 06:30 a. m. The learned counsel have to spatially the Court that after dismissal of appeal of the condemned prisoner from all the available forums and rejection of mercy petition by the President of Pakistan whether the jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked in such an eventuality.
8. Notice to respondents and case be placed before my learned brother Judge, Mr. Justice Wazir Shakeel Ahmed, on 10-01- 2017 for preliminary hearing."
9. 8.The learned counsel again filed the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and raised many fold grounds in the petition.
9. Both the learned counsel were heard at a great length and relevant law was also threshed at bar regarding exercise of powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It goes without saying that powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are neither alternative go additional in its character. These powers are exercised, where no alternate remedy was available to an aggrieved party and the Court considers that dictates of justice demand that Court should come for rescue of an affected party and not otherwise. As discussed supra that accused has exhausted all the remedies available to him under law and after turning down of his mercy petition by the President of Pakistan. The loudly arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot hold the field and are out of the scope of the powers conferred upon this Court under section 561-A, -Cr.P.C. as this Court cannot sit as a revisional Court over the orders of apex Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, endorsed by the President of Pakistan, in mercy petition.
10. 10.The learned counsel badly failed to make out a case in favour of the petitioner, hence the petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is dismissed in limini.
11. 12.The petitions bearing No, Cr. Misc.16/2017 is disposed of