' MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- The facts leading to this order are that applicant Abdul Rauf was tried for snatching a car on gun point from driver Muhammad Sabir on 10-1-2001. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi, in Special Case No,58 of 2001 convicted him for offence under section 392, P.P.C. Read with section 6(D) of ATA and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 10 years with fine of Rs,1,00,000 in default thereof to suffer one year's R.I. Further.
2. His appeal being Cr. A.T.A. Appeal No,20 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court on 25-9-2002 reducing the sentence to 7 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,50,000 in default to suffer 6 months' R.I. Further.
The Honourable Supreme Court refused leave and dismissed applicant's Criminal Petition No,114-K of 2002 by order, dated 8-9-2003.
3. Through present application, the applicant alleges that due to grant of remissions for about more than three years he has completed the sentence by remaining in jail since January, 2001 but is not being released by Jail Authorities. Under the directions of this Court Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi submitted Jail Roll of the applicant. According to it remissions allowed to the applicant till the start of June, 2004 were only ten months and twenty days which benefit was extended to him. He has yet to serve out three years, three months and twenty-seven days' as unexpired sentence. Applicant's counsel has failed to place on record any material showing the grant of remissions more than what is shown in the Jail Roll. The application is, therefore, meritless.
4. Before parting with the order we consider it proper to express that under section 400, Cr.P.C. The entire of the sentence served out by a convict together with the details of the remissions awarded to him is to be submitted before the Court which initially convicts the accused and sends him with warrant of conviction. In fact, that warrant has to be returned after the sentence has been fully executed. Obviously, the controversy, if any, relating to the execution of warrant of the conviction has to be dealt with by that Court in accordance with law. Practice of rushing to this Court cannot be encouraged or approved. This Court can refuse to entertain such applications relating to the area within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that the trial Courts are expected to insist upon the proper and regular satisfaction of the requirement of section 400, Cr.P.C. They should see that the sentence awarded to the accused is served in accordance with. Law.
5. Above are the reasons for short order whereby application was dismissed on 2-7-2004. Let the copy of this order go to the Registrar, High Court of Sindh at Karachi for circulating among all the Courts trying the cases for offence under the different laws, for strict compliance.