TAJJAMAL HUSSAIN MAL IK Versus PAKISTAN
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous petition seeking remissions of his sentence. The petitioner, a retired Major-General, was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment under the Pakistan Army Act and had challenged his conviction through a constitutional petition alongside seeking remissions. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the convict to remissions of sentence under the relevant law and rules. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was based on sound reasoning and that no flaw could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.
- Is a convict sentenced under the Pakistan Army Act entitled to remissions of sentence as a matter of right under the relevant rules?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to grant remissions of sentence warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning?
- Section 31(d), Pakistan Army Act
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- -This petition by Maj.-Gen. (Rtd.) Tajjamal Hussain Malik is directed against the order of the High Court dated 28-10-1987 dismissing his miscellaneous petition in Writ Petition No.3295 of 1986 filed by him.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sentenced to suffer 14 years' R.I. under section 31 (d) of Pakistan Army Act. He filed a Constitution Petition (No.3295/86) to challenge his conviction and sentence. He also filed a miscellaneous petition against refusal of the relevant authority to grant him remissions of sentence to which he considers himself to be entitled under the relevant law and rules. This application was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide the impugned order.
Feeling aggrieved he has filed the present 'petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and perused the relevant provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel has not been able to show any flaw in the impugned order, which, we find is based on sound reasoning. We 'A therefore find no merit in the petition. Leave is consequently refused.
M.I. /T-17/S Petition dismissed