Mst

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Rev. No._____________/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan. Petitioner VERSUS The State.

………..Respondent

Revision Petition U/s 439/435 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.12.2000 passed by Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan the learned A.S.J. Multan, through which Non-Bailable warrants at the petitioners were issued on first instance, and bail bonds were cancelled also. CLAIM IN APPEAL: - To set aside the impugned order and petitioner be allowed to join the regular proceedings of the case. Case F.I.R. No. 126/94 Dated: 20.8.94 P.S. Bohar Gate, U/s: 420/467, 468/471 P.P.C. 16/10/7/79(Hadood) 1979

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the above-referred case was registered against the petitioner and six others The petitioner was released on bail by the court of competent jurisdiction.

3. That after submission the challan in court, the petitioner remained attending the trial court on every date. The petitioner was present on 7.12.2000 in court, when she feels kidney pain. The petitioner left the court room at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner went to have advice from doctor because of fasting and in the meantime case was called. The petitioner was marked absent instead of attending first call. Non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued, the bail bonds were cancelled and the surety was also summoned. The order is Annex “A” and Medical Certificate is Annex “B”. 4. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside inter alia on the following: GROUNDS a)

That the impugned order is against the natural justice and law of equity.

b)

That the impugned order is against norms of criminal law and justice.

c)

That the petitioner remained present on each and every dated and it was first default on the part of petitioner.

d)

That there is a process in the law to procure the attendance of accused persons and the impugned order is not according to that scheme of law.

e)

That the order and action of trial court is harsh and not warranted under the law.

f)

That another co-accused Rasul Bax could not attend the court on the two dates due to illness. Instead of production of Medical Certificate, he was sent to jail. In this situation the petitioner feels the same apprehension.

g)

That the petitioner is a lady and has certain protections under the law. Keeping

view

of

the

above-mentioned

circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the order

dated 7.12.2000 may graciously be set aside, and petitioner be allowed to join the proceedings of the case. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be extended to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________ (Mst. Shahana Parveen)

Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Rev. No._____________/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs

The State

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above Revision Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of December 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Rev. No._____________/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs

The State

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Opening Sheet.

3

Revision Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Copy of order.

A

6

Medical Certificate.

B

7

Vakalatnama PETITIONER

Dated: ____________ (Mst. Shahana Parveen)

Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/T/2000 1.

Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan.

2.

Saeed Ahmad S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Dogar, R/o Kotla Gamu, Tehsil Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh.

3.

Kalsoom Mai W/o Saeed Ahmad, caste Kalro R/o Kotla Gamu, Tehsil Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh.

4.

Shabbir Ahmad S/o Ameer Bakhshh, caste Baloch, R/o Mouza Mariwal, District Muzaffargarh.

5.

Ghulam Yaseen S/o Allah Bakhshh, caste Daya, R/o Mouza Makwal Tehsil Jatoi District Muzaffargarh.

6.

Murad Khan S/o Muhammad Aslam Khan, caste Pathan, R/o Jameel Abad, Multan. ………..Applicants VERSUS The State.

……..Respondent

APPLICATION U/S 526 CR.P.C. FOR THE TRANSFER OF CASE. Case F.I.R. No. 126/94 Dated: 20.8.94 P.S. Bohar Gate, U/s: 420/467, 468/471 P.P.C. 16/10 (E.O.H.O. 1979) Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the above-mentioned case is pending adjudication in the court of Mian Sajjad Ahmad Chawan, the learned Addition Sessions Judge, Multan and the next date of hearing is fixed 20.12.2000.

3. That the above-mentioned case was registered by one Muhammad Nawaz (since deceased) alleged to be the husband of the applicant No. 1. He alleged that the applicant No. 1 was abducted by applicant No. 4 with the help and connivance of applicants No. 2 & 3. He also alleged that divorce deed was obtained through fraud by applicant No. 1 with the connivance of applicants No. 5, 6 & Rasool Bakhsh co-accused. 4. That all the applicants were challaned in this case and challan was submitted in trial court on 8.6.95. The charge was framed for the first time on 31.7.97 and subsequently on 14.12.98. The prosecution evidence was closed on 28.3.2000. Statements of applicants were recorded on 6.4.2000 and the documentary defence evidence was adduced by applicant No. 1 on 22.4.2000. This case was fixed for arguments on 26.4.2000. 5. That the case was adjourned for 12.4.2000. In the meantime, the learned Presiding Officer was transferred and the case was adjourned for 22.4.2000, 26.4.2000 and 4.5.2000. The case was fixed for final arguments on 6.5.2000 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Sajjad Ahmad Chawan. The case was fixed for 22.5.2000 for final judgment. Since then, the case is adjourned for announcement of judgment for 13 times (27.5.2000,

12.6.2000,

8.7.2000,

20.7.2000,

21.7.2000,

27.7.2000, 3.8.2000, 9.8.2000, 19.9.2000, 30.9.2000, 13.10.2000 & 28.10.2000). On 16.11.2000, Rasool Bakhshh co-accused submitted an application for the dispensation of his presence due to illness and the case was fixed for 23.11.2000. Rasool Bakhshh co-accused was not present. 6. That on 23.11.2000 and his non-bailable warrants were issued in first instance along-with cancellation of bail bond and case was fixed for 30.11.2000. On this date, Rasool Bakhsh co-accused was not present and the case was fixed for 6.12.2000. Rasool Bakhsh co-accused appeared on this date with an application for submission of new bail bond or restoration of previous bonds. He also submitted a Medical Certificate to substantiate his absence.

His application was turned down and Rasool Bakhsh co-accused was sent to judicial lock-up and the case was fixed for 7.12.2000. 7. That on 7.12.2000, the case was called first time at 10.00 A.M. and all the accused were present in the court. At 11.00 A.M. the applicant No. 1 felt kidney pain. The applicant No. 1 could not take any medicine because of fasting and left the court-room for having advice of doctor. In the meanwhile, the case was called and the applicant was marked absent. Non bailable warrants were issued for the attendance of applicant No. 1 bail bonds were also cancelled. 8. That the applicants seek transfer of above-mentioned case inter alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the final arguments were heard by the learned trial court on 22.5.2000, but the trial court could not announce judgment.

ii)

That during last month of proceedings of the case, the behaviour of learned trial court became harsh and passed such orders without any cogent reason.

iii)

That the learned trial court did not follow the principles of natural justice or the procedure regulated by the Criminal Code, even requested personally to transfer the case.

iv)

That since the period of 1-1/2 month, the prosecution is threatening the applicants, that the applicants must be punished, because they have approached the trial court for this purpose. The applicants explored the matter and it was found that the prosecution witnesses are frequently visiting the residence of the learned trial court.

v)

That the applicants have every likelihood for the announcement of partial judgment.

vi)

That the applicants have no hope for a just, proper and impartial decision from the learned trial court. Keeping in view the above-mentioned circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the trial of the case F.I.R. No. 126/94 dated 20.8.94 P.S. Bohar Gate, Multan, may please be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Any other direction, order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted in the interest of justice. Humble applicants,

Dated: _________

Through: Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Hashmi, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20691

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/T/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen, etc.

Vs.

The State.

APPLICATION U/S 526 CR.P.C. FOR THE TRANSFER OF CASE. Case F.I.R. No. 126/94 Dated: 20.8.94 P.S. Bohar Gate, U/s: 420/467, 468/471 P.P.C. 16/10 (E.O.H.O. 1979) AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2.

That the above-mentioned case is pending adjudication in the court of Mian Sajjad Ahmad Chawan, the learned Addition Sessions Judge, Multan and the next date of hearing is fixed 20.12.2000.

3.

That the above-mentioned case was registered by one Muhammad Nawaz (since deceased) alleged to be the husband of the applicant No. 1. He alleged that the applicant No. 1 was abducted by applicant No. 4 with the help and connivance of applicants No. 2 & 3. He also alleged that divorce deed was obtained through fraud by applicant No. 1 with the connivance of applicants No. 5, 6 & Rasool Bakhsh co-accused.

4.

That all the applicants were challaned in this case and challan was submitted in trial court on 8.6.95. The charge was framed for the first time on 31.7.97 and subsequently on 14.12.98. The

prosecution

evidence

was

closed

on

28.3.2000.

Statements of applicants were recorded on 6.4.2000 and the

documentary defence evidence was adduced by applicant No. 1 on 22.4.2000. This case was fixed for arguments on 26.4.2000. 5.

That the case was adjourned for 12.4.2000. In the meantime, the learned Presiding Officer was transferred and the case was adjourned for 22.4.2000, 26.4.2000 and 4.5.2000. The case was fixed for final arguments on 6.5.2000 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Sajjad Ahmad Chawan. The case was fixed for 22.5.2000 for final judgment. Since then, the case is adjourned for announcement of judgment for 13 times (27.5.2000, 12.6.2000, 8.7.2000, 20.7.2000,

21.7.2000,

27.7.2000,

19.9.2000,

30.9.2000,

13.10.2000

3.8.2000, &

9.8.2000,

28.10.2000).

On

16.11.2000, Rasool Bakhshh co-accused submitted an application for the dispensation of his presence due to illness and the case was fixed for 23.11.2000. Rasool Bakhshh coaccused was not present. 6.

That on 23.11.2000 and his non-bailable warrants were issued in first instance along-with cancellation of bail bond and case was fixed for 30.11.2000. On this date, Rasool Bakhsh coaccused was not present and the case was fixed for 6.12.2000. Rasool Bakhsh co-accused appeared on this date with an application for submission of new bail bond or restoration of previous bonds. He also submitted a Medical Certificate to substantiate his absence. His application was turned down and Rasool Bakhsh co-accused was sent to judicial lock-up and the case was fixed for 7.12.2000.

7.

That on 7.12.2000, the case was called first time at 10.00 A.M. and all the accused were present in the court. At 11.00 A.M. the applicant No. 1 felt kidney pain. The applicant No. 1 could not take any medicine because of fasting and left the courtroom for having advice of doctor. In the meanwhile, the case was called and the applicant was marked absent. Non bailable

warrants were issued for the attendance of applicant No. 1 bail bonds were also cancelled. 8.

That the applicants seek transfer of above-mentioned case inter alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the final arguments were heard by the learned trial court on 22.5.2000, but the trial court could not announce judgment.

ii)

That during last month of proceedings of the case, the behaviour of learned trial court became harsh and passed such orders without any cogent reason.

iii)

That the learned trial court did not follow the principles of natural justice or the procedure regulated by the Criminal Code, even requested personally to transfer the case.

iv)

That since the period of 1-1/2 month, the prosecution is threatening the applicants, that the applicants must be punished, because they have approached the trial court for this purpose. The applicants explored the matter and it was found that the prosecution witnesses are frequently visiting the residence of the learned trial court.

v)

That the applicants have every likelihood for the announcement of partial judgment.

vi)

That the applicants have no hope for a just, proper and impartial decision from the learned trial court.

9.

That all the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/T/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen, etc.

Vs.

The State.

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the contents of the main application may please be treated as the integral part of this application.

2.

That the applicants have raised many rational and reasonable grounds for the transfer of case, and prima facie have a good arguable case.

3.

That the accused persons are entitled to get a fair and just decision from the court of law.

4.

That valuable rights of the applicants are vested with the result of the case, and judgment under the apprehension may cause irreparable loss to the rights of the applicants. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the proceedings in the case may please be stayed till the final decision of the main application. Humble Applicants, Dated: _________

Through: Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Hashmi, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20691 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/T/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen, etc.

Vs.

The State.

STAY APPLICATION

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of December 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/T/2000 Mst. Shahana Parveen, etc.

Vs.

The State.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS 1

Urgent Form

2

Transfer Application.

3

Affidavit

4

Application u/s 151 C.P.C.

5

Affidavit

6

Vakalatnama

ANNEXES PAGES

APPLICANTS Dated: ____________ Through: Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Hashmi, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20691

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore. 2. Superintendent Central Jail, Multan. 3. State. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with all enabling provision of law read with Sec-561 Cr.P.C. to award the Remissions/Special Remissions to the petitioner, available under the law.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That a case F.I.R. No. 126/94 dated 20.8.94 was got registered at Police Station Bohar Gate (Multan), under offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance 1979 and Sec-467/468/471 P.P.C. against the petitioner and six others. The trial of case was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan) and the petitioner was convicted under section 10 (2) E.O.H. Ordinance No. VII of 1979 for R.I. ten years plus 30 stripes and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to further undergo six months S.I. in case of default of fine. Copy of judgment is Annex “A”. 3. That the petitioner filed an appeal in the Federal Shariat Court. The learned Appellate Court was pleased to reduce the sentence

of petitioner to 2 years and fine to R. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The benefit of Sec382/B was also extended in the favour of the petitioner. The copy of judgment is Annex “B”. 4. That the petitioner is presently confined in the Central Jail, Multan, for the passing of sentence awarded to her. The petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and must be dealt with according to the law of land. There are so many remissions awarded to the convict prisoners on the occasions of “Eid-ul-Fitr”, “Eid-ul-Azha”, Pakistan Day and “Eid Milad-un-Nabi” etc. for which the petitioner is entitled as like other convicted prisoners. The petitioner was taken into custody on 20.12.2000 during this period occasions of “Eid-ul-Fitr”, “Eid-ul-Azha”, Pakistan Day and “Eid Milad-un-Nabi” have been passed but no remission is granted to the petitioner. 5. That the petitioner many times requested for the grant of remissions, but the respondent No. 2 turned down the requests of the petitioner on the pretext that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of grant of remissions due to some circulars and letters issued by the respondents No. 1 and 3. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner is never intimated by such letters and circulars. 6. That the case of petitioner does not fall within the purview of any restriction or prohibition and petitioner is entitled for the grant of remissions awarded time to time on different occasions by the Government. The respondent No. 2 is under statutory obligation to grant and calculate remissions in the favour of the petitioner but he failed to do so. The petitioner is left with no other adequate, efficacious and speedy remedy except to invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of her grievances. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed to award, grant and calculate the benefit of remissions announced/declared

by the Government time to time on different occasions, to the petitioner. Any other writ, order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________ Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001

Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs.

Home Secretary Punjab etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above titled Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs

Home Secretary, Punjab, etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

__

__

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

__

__

3

Writ Petition.

__

1-5

4

Copy of judgment.

__

7-17

5

Copy of judgment.

A

19-51

6

Dispensation Application.

B

53

7

Vakalatnama

__

55

PETITIONER Dated:

.06.2001 (Mst. Shahana Parveen)

Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs

Home Secretary, Punjab, etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A & B” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In W.P. No.____________/2001 Mst. Shahana Parveen

Vs

Home Secretary, Punjab, etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahana Parveen D/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Sayal, R/o Mohallah Nasir Abad, Mumtazabad, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Shabbir Ahmad S/o Ameer Bakhsh, caste Baloch, R/o Mouza Maniwala, P.S. Rohilanwali, District Muzaffargarh (confined in Central Jail, Multan). Petitioner VERSUS 1. Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore. 2. Superintendent Central Jail, Multan. 3. State. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with all enabling provision of law read with Sec-561 Cr.P.C. to award the Remissions/Special Remissions to the petitioner, available under the law.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That a case F.I.R. No. 126/94 dated 20.8.94 was got registered at Police Station Bohar Gate (Multan), under offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance 1979 and Sec-467/468/471 P.P.C. against the petitioner and six others. The trial of case was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan) and the petitioner was convicted under section 10 (2) E.O.H. Ordinance No. VII of 1979 for R.I. ten years plus 30 stripes and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to further undergo six months S.I. in case of default of fine and U/s 16 seven years R.I. 30 stripes and Rs. 10,000/- fine. Copy of judgment is Annex “A”. 3. That the petitioner filed an appeal in the Federal Shariat Court. The learned Appellate Court was pleased to reduce the sentence

of petitioner to 2-1/2 years and fine to R. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months for each count. The benefit of Sec-382/B was also extended in the favour of the petitioner. The copy of judgment is Annex “B”. 4. That the petitioner is presently confined in the Central Jail, Multan, for the passing of sentence awarded to him. The petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and must be dealt with according to the law of land. There are so many remissions awarded to the convict prisoners on the occasions of “Eid-ulFitr”, “Eid-ul-Azha”, Pakistan Day and “Eid Milad-un-Nabi” etc. for which the petitioner is entitled as like other convicted prisoners. The petitioner was taken into custody on 20.12.2000 during this period occasions of “Eid-ul-Fitr”, “Eid-ul-Azha”, Pakistan Day and “Eid Milad-un-Nabi” have been passed but no remission is granted to the petitioner. 5. That the petitioner many times requested for the grant of remissions, but the respondent No. 2 turned down the requests of the petitioner on the pretext that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of grant of remissions due to some circulars and letters issued by the respondents No. 1 and 3. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner is never intimated by such letters and circulars. 6. That the co-accused filed a W.P. No. 4870/2001, which was accepted by his lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin vide judgment dated 13.7.2001; and petitioner is entitled for the same relief. Copy of judgment is Annex “C”. 7. That the case of petitioner does not fall within the purview of any restriction or prohibition and petitioner is entitled for the grant of remissions awarded time to time on different occasions by the Government. The respondent No. 2 is under statutory obligation to grant and calculate remissions in the favour of the petitioner but he failed to do so. The petitioner is left with no other adequate, efficacious and speedy remedy except to invoke the

extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of her grievances. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed to award, grant and calculate the benefit of remissions announced/declared by the Government time to time on different occasions, to the petitioner. Any other writ, order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________ Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Shabbir Ahmad

Vs

Home Secretary, Punjab, etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

__

__

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

__

__

3

Writ Petition.

__

1-5

4

Copy of judgment of trial court.

A

7-17

5

Copy of judgment of appellate court.

B

19-49

6

Copy of judgment dated 13.7.2001.

C

51-57

7

Dispensation Application.

8

Vakalatnama

59 __

61

PETITIONER Dated:

.08.2001 (Shabbir Ahmad)

Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In W.P. No.____________/2001 Shabbir Ahmad

Vs.

Home Secretary Punjab etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A to C” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT Dated: __________ Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176