| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 483 2018 SLD 483 2018 PLD 1 |
Writ Petition No. 1706-P of 2016, decision Date : 25-05-2017, hearing Date : 02-03-2017.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Latif Afridi and Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Manzoor Khan Khalil, DAG and Waqar Ahmad Khan, AAG along with Major Muhammad Tahir and Lt. Col. Kashif, 11 Corps. for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD AYAZ
VS
SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL, TIMERGARA, DISTRICT LOWER DIR AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Pakistan Army Act, 1952
Section: 97
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Factual controversy---Controversy, which was based on contentious disputed facts, could not be entertained and adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Ghulam Nabi's case PLD 2001 SC 415; Shamim Khan's case PLD 2005 SC 792; Muhammad Sadiq v. Ilahi Bukhsh 2006 SCMR 12 and Milan Party's case PLD 2012 SC 292 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952), S. 97---Conviction and sentence passed by Field General Court Martial---Judicial review by High Court---Scope---Powers of judicial review under Art. 199 of the Constitution, against the sentences and convictions passed by the Field General Court Martial was not legally identical to the powers of an Appellate Court---Evidence produced could not be analyzed in detail to displace any reasonable or probable conclusion drawn by the Field General Court Martial nor could the High Court venture into the realm of the "merits" of the case---Evidentiary value of the prosecution evidence could not be adjudged by the High Court as a Court of Appeal and that too on the legal threshold required for conviction of a person on a capital charge under the ordinary criminal law---High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction only had the legal mandate to positively interfere with the decision of the Military Courts on three fundamental grounds; if the case of the prosecution was based, firstly, on no evidence, secondly, insufficient evidence and thirdly, absence of jurisdiction. Said Zaman Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2017 SCMR 1249 ref. (c) Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952)--- ----S. 59---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011, Regln. 13---Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, R. 13---Designing vehicle for a terrorist act, attacking law enforcement agencies, possessing firearm and explosives---Admission of guilt by the accused---Effect---Confessional statement of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate and Military Court clearly spoke of his admission of guilt of the charges framed against him---Prior to making…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492