PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the forfeiture of agricultural property ordered by a Summary Military Court. The core legal question was whether a Summary Military Court possessed the legal authority under Martial Law Regulations or Orders to order the forfeiture of agricultural land as part of a sentence. The Supreme Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate any specific Martial Law Order or Regulation authorizing such forfeiture. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the forfeiture order. Exercising its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court further directed that the fine deposited by the convicts be distributed, with 90% allocated as compensation to the female victims of the crime, citing the grave injustice and trauma suffered. The principle laid down is that punitive measures, such as the forfeiture of property, must be strictly authorized by the governing law, and in the absence of such explicit authority, such orders are unsustainable. The Court also ordered the restoration of the forfeited lands and the refund of income derived therefrom.
- Does a Summary Military Court have the inherent authority to order the forfeiture of agricultural property in the absence of an express Martial Law Regulation or Order?
- Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercise its powers under Article 187 to redistribute fine amounts as compensation to victims?
- Is a forfeiture order passed by a Summary Military Court without legal basis liable to be set aside by the High Court?
- Article 187, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXXIII Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---We have heard Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate- General, for the appellants, the Province of Punjab and others, and Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have also referred to relevant record.
2. In this appeal, by leave of this Court, the impugned judgment dated 3-2-1993 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No, 1766 of 1986 has been called into question. Brief facts are that on 31-3-1984 the complainant lodged an F.I.R., alleging that the respondents and others entered the house and caused injuries to the complainant and also dragged out wives of his two brothers and after removing their clothes paraded them in the Bazar. The case against the respondents and others was tried by the Summary Military Court No, 48, Multan on 8-9-1984 and all the respondents were convicted. Apart from the sentence of imprisonment and lashes, all were also fined Rs,2,00,000 each and confiscation of all agricultural land in Pakistan and it was also ordered that 25% of the fine would be equally shared by the two female victims. The said judgment of the Summary Military Court was challenged by five convicts in Writ Petition No, 1766 of 1986 before the Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, but in so far as forfeiture of agricultural property of the convicts was concerned, came to the conclusion that the Summary Military Court under the relevant Martial Law Order/Regulation was not entitled to pass order of confiscation of agricultural land. The Province of Punjab has challenged the aforesaid decision of Lahore High Court regarding forfeiture of the agricultural land pleading that the Summary Military Court had powers to order forfeiture of the agricultural property under the relevant law under which a convict had been tried. However, during arguments we have not been shown any Regulation or Order of Martial Law Order under which forfeiture of agricultural property could be ordered. When this matter came up before us on 19-3-1998 we came to know from learned counsel for the convicts/respondents that the fine of Rs,2,00,000 each imposed upon the respondents had not been paid despite passage of time of 14 years. On the other hand, ' learned counsel for the respondents submitted that despite the order passed by the Lahore High Court the agricultural property of the respondent have remained attached and have not been `released. Under these circumstances it was directed that first the respondents should deposit the amount of Rs,10,00,000 (Rs,2,00,000 each by the five respondents/convicts, who had approached the High Court) with the Registrar of this Court and appeal was adjourned to 23-4-1998. On 23-4-1998, the appeal was again taken up and it was reported by the learned counsel for the respondents that five seperate drafts of Rs,2,00,000 each drawn on the National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Islamabad made out in favour of Registrar of this Court have been brought. The direction was made that the drafts may be deposited in the Registrar's official account and report be made about encashment of the drafts. The appeal was then adjourned to 14-5-1998.
3. It has been reported by the Registrar vide note dated 29-4-1998 that the drafts have been encashed and the amount is available in the official account of the Registrar.
4. As observed above, no provision of any Martial Law Order/Regulation has been pointed out under which the Summary Military Court could order forfeiture of the agricultural property of the convicts. Under the circumstances to the extent we find no infirmity in the order of the Lahore High Court to call for interference.
5. However, we are of the view that grave injustice that was done to the female victims and trauma they must have undergone on account of what was done to them cannot be estimated or calculated in terms of compensation. We are, therefore of the view that instead of 25% of fine recovered they should get much larger share and to that extent we are passing this order exercising our powers under Article 187 of the Constitution read with Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.
6. As far as fine is concerned, 10% of the same amounting to Rs,1,00,000 would go to the State and remaining 90% amounting to Rs,9,00,000 will be paid to the two female victims, who are present, in equal share. The two female victims alongwith their relatives are present pursuant upon order passed by this Court and they have also appeared before us and produced their original National Identity Cards. With their consent, it is directed that Rs,10,000 each be paid to them by tomorrow. S.I.
Irshad Ahmad, Police Station Alpa, District Multan is also present. He has brought the female victims to this Court. It is directed that Rs,10,000 each to the female victims will be given in cash by the Registrar tomorrow in presence of S.I. Irshad Ahmad, for the remaining amount of Rs,8,80,000 Defence Saving Certificate would be purchased in the names of two victims in equal shares and the certificates will be delivered by the Registrar to the two female victims personally.
7. As ordered by the High Court that forfeiture of agricultural land could not be ordered by Summary Military Court, all the income recovered from such lands and lying deposited with the Government will be refunded to the respondents through Deputy Commissioner, Multan. This should be done within two months from today. The forfeited lands shall be restored to the respondents. Civil Appeal No, 587 of 1994 stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.