' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- Appellant/applicant feels aggrieved against the order, dated 29-4- 2003 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,V, Karachi whereby he has dismissed the applications under section 345(2) and 345(6), Cr.P.C. Filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant wherein a prayer had been made to allow the parties to enter into the compromise and in consequence thereof, if the compromise is found to be so genuinely entered into by the parties, the same be accepted;
2. The appellant/applicant was convicted by the learned trial Court for committing offence punishable under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 302, P.P.C, and was sentenced accordingly; the appeal filed by the appellant/applicant in this Court was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 21-12-1999 passed in Criminal Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No,33 of 1999 (Confirmation Case No,13 of 1999) in the following terms:-- "In result of the foregoing discussion and on minute scrutiny of the evidence on record we are of the considered opinion that the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt against appellant Rana Dil Muhammad. As such he is convicted for offences under section 302(b), P.P.C. Section 7(1)
(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 324, P.P.C. And sentences of death, rigorous imprisonment and fine awarded to him by the trial Court are maintained. His conviction and sentence for offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance is also maintained. Accordingly his appeal is dismissed and the death sentence is confirmed. To this context, the reference for confirmation of death is allowed. However, we extend benefit of doubt to appellants Muhammad Shakir and Imran and acquit them of the charges. Their appeals are accordingly allowed, and reference for confirmation of their death sentence is decline.
' The amount of fine, if received from the appellant, be paid to legal heirs and injured persons in the following ratio:--
(i) Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of each deceased. Rs,10,000 to each injured person.
3. The appellant/applicant approached Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and vide order, dated 11-10-2001 the appeal was dismissed with the observation that the conclusion drawn by learned Judges of this Court to maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant hardly warrant any exception and interference of Honourable Supreme Court.
4. The said applications for compromise were dismissed by learned trial Court vide order impugned herein with the observations, "section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not compoundable in which the accused has been sentenced to death. Although section 302, P.P.C. Is compoundable but the simple section 302, P.P.C. Is not a scheduled offence of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as the learned trial Court has convicted him under section 7(1)(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which is not a schedule; so also the other section in which the accused has been sentenced are also not compoundable".
5. We hive heard Mr. Nayyar Ziauddin, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Habib Ahmad learned A.A.-G. For the State.
6. The case-law relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand is reported in 2003 SCMR 553 Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others v. The State wherein the petitioners/convicts of the said case were convicted by learned trial Court in the following terms:-- 1 Under section 302/149, P.P.C.Sentenced petitioner Ghulam Shabbir to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,20,000 payable to the legal heirs of deceased Siddique Umar under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
Sentenced petitioners Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Raza and Mushtaq Ahmed to undergo R.I. For 10 years.Each with fine of Rs,10,000 each payable to the gegal heirs of Siddique Umar deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2 Under section 324, P.P.C.Sentenced petitioner Ghulam Raza to 7 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000 in default whereof to undergo further R.I. For 6 months.
3 Under sections 324, and 149, P.P.C.Sentenced Ghulam Shabbir to 7 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000 in default whereof to undergo 6 months' R.I.
4 Under section 337-A(i), P.P.C.Sentenced petitioners Ghulam Shabbir and Mushtaq Ahmed to 2 years' R.I.
5 Under section 337-A(i) and 149, P. P. C .Sentenced petitioners and Ghulam Raza to 2 years' R.I.
6 Under section 9 of A.T.A., 1997Sentenced petitioners and Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Raza and Mushtaq Ahmed to 4 years' R.I.
7 Under section 148, P.P.C.Sentenced petitioners Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Raza and Mushtaq Ahmed to 3 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,10,000 each in default whereof to further undergo one month's R.I.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the petitioners and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. The said convicts filed appeal before the learned Lahore High Court and with modification of sentences, rest of the convictions/sentences were maintained in the following terms:-- 1 Under sections 302 and 149,P. P. C .Sentenced petitioners Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Raza and Mushtaq Ahmed to imprisonment for life each with direction to pay Rs,10,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2 Under sections 302 and 149,P. P.C .Petitioners were acquitted of the charge. Rest of the conviction/sentence was however, maintained. ' at serial No,6 above by the trial Court was to the effect that under section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 sentence against the same was awarded to the accused/appellant of the said reported case to four years' imprisonment each with fine of Rs,10,000 each, which conviction/ sentence under section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was maintained by learned Lahore High Court. On the face of such facts and circumstances of the said reported case, while the appeal was pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the convicts/ appellants with the complainant party submitted compromise application which were heard and allowed by Honourable Supreme Court in the following terms:-- "(8) In view of above discussion, we are satisfied with the report of learned Sessions Judge, Attock.
We are also convinced that the legal heirs and Wali of deceased Siddique Umar, namely Ghulam Hussain (father), Mst. Kaniz Fatima (mother), Mst. Razia (widow), and injured victims Muhammad Khan, Nusrat Ali, Ghulam Raza, Ghulam Hussain have compounded the offence with the petitioners on their behalf as well as on behalf of minors namely minors Hassan Farooq and Ahmed Farooq, voluntarily, without any duress or coercion and have waived their rights of Qisas and do not claim Diyat. So far as minors are concerned, they are entitled to the share of Diyat amount and their respective shares of Diyat have been invested in Government sponsored profit bearing scheme of D.S.Cs. With National Saving Centre-I, Attock, which will be paid to them when they will become major.
(9) It is pertinent to refer the provisions laid down under sections 309, 338-E and 338-H whereby in the case of Qatl-i-Amd an adult sane Wali may, at any time and without any compensation may waive the right of Qisas without accepting any compensation correspondingly, an amendment was made under section 345, Cr.P.C. Whereby convicts who have been convicted for offences falling within Chapter XVI of P.P.C. Affecting the human body were made compoundable and got the right to seek composition of for the offences. Vide its subsection (5), the legal heirs of the deceased and victims have been allowed to compound the offence with the permission of the Court where appeal is pending whereas vide its subsection (6), such composition of an offence snail have an affect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(10) Therefore, in view of the report of Sessions Judge, Attock and request so made by learned counsel for the parties, legal heirs injured/victims are allowed to compound the offence with the petitioners.
' Accordingly, the permission to compound the offence in view of subsection (5) of section 345 of the Cr.P.C. Is accorded to the parties in order to maintain cordial relations and bury their hatchets forever. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous No,123 of 2002 is allowed.
' Since leave to compound the offence is allowed, as such we set aside the conviction/sentence of the petitioners as well as impugned judgment, dated 25th September, 2001. The petitioners namely Ghulam Shabbir son of Ghulam Yousuf, Ghulam Raza son of Ghulam, Mohi-e-Din and Mushtaq Ahmed are acquitted under subsection (6) of section 345, Cr.P.C. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' Consequently, pdition is converted into appeal and disposed of in above terms."
9.the Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that even though the accused/covict are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for committing offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the event of the parties entering into the compromise pertaining to the substantive main offence of such a case, the compromise so entered into by the parties can be entertained in accordance with law, and if competently and genuinely entered into by the parties, can be allowed even though the conviction may have been awarded under one or more sections of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
10. Following the said rule, this criminal revision was allowed by us vide short order, dated 21-11- 2003, reproduced as follows:-- "Since the applicant has not been convicted separately for the offence under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act and for further detailed reasons to be recorded later on, the revision is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the compromise applications in accordance with, the law, keeping in view of the provisions of section 311, P.P.C. After holding necessary enquiry in relation to the genuineness of the compromise': And above are the reasons for the same."