Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302, 324,

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 345, 367(2), 367(3), 544-A

REMARKS

(a)Under the provisions of section 367(2) and (3), Cr.P.C, it was mandatory for the Court that after finding the accused guilty of one or more offences, upon recording conviction, separate sentence must be clearly awarded to the accused so convicted otherwise it would be illegal being in violation of the mandatory provisions. Law provided the passing of specific sentence for a distinct offence and if it was not awarded, it could not be construed that same was impliedly awarded as the very judgment to that extent became illegal and violative of the mandatory provisions of section 367(2) & (3), Cr.P.C. In the present case, no separate sentence was awarded to the accused persons under section 7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Trial Court or the High Court. Such legal aspect of vital importance, conveniently escaped from the notice of the Trial Court and the High Court in the second round of the present case when the accused persons were seeking acquittal on the basis of compromise under section 302(b), P.P.C. alone. It could not be construed nor was it permissible under the law to hold that the accused persons were impliedly sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as well by applying the rule of implication.
(b)The offence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is non compoundable. However, courts must examine whether a separate charge was framed against the accused-respondent and whether he has been convicted and sentenced under that specific provision or under any other section of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. A non-compoundable offence cannot be treated as compoundable by the court, for the simple reason that no amendment, deletion, insertion, or addition to the law can be made by the judiciary—this falls exclusively within the domain of the Legislature.