1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is for leave to appeal against the Order dated 8-4-1978 passed in Writ Petition No. 1752 of 1978 dismissing the writ petition urging interference in the matter of mercy Petition moved by the petitioners after their conviction and sentence of death in a murder case had been maintained up to this Court.
2. We may take up the last mentioned contention first. To contend that the C. M. L. A. Has no powers under Article 48 of the Constitution, and that the power envisaged therein could only be exercised by the Prime Minister even at a time when the office of the Prime Minister no longer exists is, in our opinion, fallacious. The Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 expressly provides in its Article 3(1) that the President shall act on and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Martial Law Administrator. Article 48 of the Constitution remained in operation by virtue of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, and in place of the Prime Minister the C. M. L. A. Became the competent authority to deal with the mercy petitions and to give his advice to the President. The decision of the President rejecting or accepting a merc petition is a matter of his discretion, and normally in a discretionary matter the High Court would not interfere under Article 199 of the'
3. Constitution. The petitioners, however, tried to argue that the exercise. Of discretionary power in their mercy petitions was color able inasmuch as respondent No. 1 issued statement in the press that he had rejected about seventy mercy petitions since his taking oath as C. M. L. A. The petitioners concede that it is not possible for them to state with exactitude that this number includes also their mercy petitions. In the absence of strong data in this respect it is not possible to agree with the petitioners that there is an element of bias in the disposal of their mercy petitions. In this connection it would not be out of place to mention that each mercy petition, before it is placed before the competent authority for decision, undergoes a certain process including a thorough scrutiny particularly where death penalty has been awarded. This not--withstanding a mercy petition invariably follows after the case has been determined by the Courts of law and all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
4. There is no force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.