BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from an application filed by the Superintendent of Jail for the review of a previous order of the Supreme Court dated 29-11-1974, due to a clerical error in the narration of facts regarding the sentences of convicted persons. The core legal question concerned the correction of a clerical mistake in a court order and the correct sentencing terminology under the law applicable to the date of the offense. The Supreme Court held that it has the power to review and correct clerical errors in its orders, and further noted that for murders committed on 3-7-1969, the correct sentence is transportation for life rather than imprisonment for life, following precedent. The key principle laid down is that the court may correct clerical errors in its orders suo motu or upon application, and sentencing must strictly accord with the law applicable at the time of the commission of the offense.
- Can the Supreme Court review its order to correct a clerical error?
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life should be converted to transportation for life for offenses committed on 3-7-1969?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-Bashir, Rajada, Ibrahim , Boota and Ahmad Din were tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for murder. Boota was sentenced to imprisonment for life, whilst the other four accused were sentenced to death. All the accused filed an appeal in the High Court which was heard with the reference from the, Sessions Court for the con--firmation of the sentence of death passed against Bashir, Rajada, Ibrahim and Ahmad Din. The High Court upheld the convictions of all the accused, dismissed the appeal of Rajada and Bashir and confirmed the sentence of death against them. However, the High Court reduced the sentence against Ahmad Din and Ibrahim to imprisonment for life. The accused thereupon challenged the judgment of the High Court in a petition for leave which was dismissed on 29-11-1974. As the petition for leave was dismissed, it meant that the sentence of death passed against Rajada and Bashir stood whilst the sentence of life imprisonment passed against Ahmad Din and Ibrahim was alto upheld. However, in the narration of facts in the Court's Order of 29-11-1974, it was erroneously stated that the High Court had "reduced the death sentence imposed upon Bashir and Rajada to transportation for life". As the High Court had confirmed the sentence against these two accused and reduced the sentence of Ahmad Din anti Ibrahim to life imprisonment, the Superintendent of Jail has filed an application for the review of out Order of 29-11-1974 on the ground hat it contains a clerical error.
2. This Court's Order dismissing me petition for leave contains a clerical) error, as submitted by the Superintendent Jail. Accordingly we review) our order and correct it. We, therefore, clarify that as this court dismissed the petition for leave this means that the judgment of the High Court confirming the sentence of death against Bashir and Rajada stands. Similarly the judgment of the High Court refusing to confirm the sentence of death against Ibrahim and Ahmad Din was upheld and we clarify this. The learned Assistant Advocate-General next drew our attention to the fact that murder for which 5 accused have been convicted was committed on 3-7-1969, therefore, he submitted that in view of this Court's judgment in Noor Elahi v. Ch. Zafarul Haque (PLD1996SC557), the correct sentence against Ibrahim, Ahmad Din and Boota was transportation for life and not imprisonment for life. This submission too is correct. Accordingly, we review silo motu our order of 29-11-1974 and direct that the sentences against Ibrahim Ahmad Din and Boota stand reduced from imprisonment for life to trans. Portation for life.