Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Malik ATTIQUE VS Respondent: SHOAIB alias LABBA and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Falak Sher, Rana Bhagwan Das, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan Title: Malik ATTIQUE vs SHOAIB alias LABBA and another Case No.: Criminal Petition No,460-L of 2005 Date of Judgment:2006-12-11 Reported As: 2007 SCMR 992 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by High Court order, dated 11-7-2005 suspending death sentence of respondentShoaib alias Labba in an appeal against conviction and death sentence for committing act of Qatl-i-Amd. 2. Apart from the respondent, Shafqat Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Anwar, Zulfiqar Ahmad, Saiful Malook and Bashiran Bibi were tried for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd of them, death sentence was awarded to respondents Shoaib and Muhammad Anwar while Muhammad Sarwar was sentenced to life imprisonment. Co-accused-Zulfiqar Ahmad, to whom active part in the commission of the crime was attributed and co-accused Shafqat Hussain who allegedly fired in air were acquitted by trial Court. 3. Muhammad Anwar, Shoaib and Muhammad Sarwar have appealed against their conviction and sentence which is sub judice before a Division Bench of High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state whether acquittal of Zulfiqar Ahmad and Shoaib has been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzaal Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Khurram Latif Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the respondent as well as Chaudhry Muhammad Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State. The grounds which weighed with the learned Division Bench of the High Court for suspension of sentence of the respondent appear to be that as per ocular account respondent was attributed only ineffective firing in air and that hearing of the appeal would consume a great deal of time 6. After hearing learned counsel, we are satisfied that no ground for interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court is made out, as it does not suffer from any serious illegality, legal
---
## Page 2
infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Since the High Court is seized with the appeal of the respondent and co-convicts, it cannot be said that by suspending the sentence it acted without jurisdiction. 7. No ground is, thus, made out for the grant of leave. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As the respondent was taken into custody after suspending the impugned order, he shall be released forthwith.