' JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR (CHAIRMAN).--- By this review petition, petitioner seeks review of judgment, dated 1-122003 of this Court whereby Criminal Appeal No,38(S) of 1998 filed by petitioner was dismissed.
2. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of provisions of section 439, Cr.P.C. And Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it was mandatory for the learned Federal Shariat Court to issue show-cause notice to petitioner before enhancing his sentence from imprisonment for life to death. According to him, since the above provisions of above law have not been followed by the learned Federal Shariat Court in letter and spirit as such the entire proceedings stood vitiated and the sentence of death is liable to be set aside. He vehemently stressed that major penalty of death would not be justified in this case as the judgment of Federal Shariat Court whereby the sentence of petitioner was enhanced was a judgment at variance. The learned two Judges of the Federal Shariat Court enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to normal penalty of death whereas the third Judge accepted his appeal and acquitted him. In such eventuality, it being as mitigating circumstance, the punishment of imprisonment for life would have been the proper sentence. In support, he cited Hadith of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) from Book tiled as "Shari'ah The Islamic Law" whereby punishment of Hadd is prevented in .Cases where doubt persists. He also referred "Chapter 22 of the Book of AlAhkam (Judgments)"ARABIC TEXT, wherein it has been mentioned that while taking decision there should be no difference of opinion. He also referred Chapter 26 of Book titled "Holding Fast to the Qur'an and the Sunna "ARABIC TEXT. He also placed reliance in the case of The State v. Sohail Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1990 Federal Shariat Court 29.
3. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the referred Hadith and case-law. As regards the impugned judgment, learned counsel could not refer to even a single error apparent on the face of record necessitating the review of impugned judgment. The entire arguments advanced by him were made on the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which is not under review before us, as such, entire submissions being out of context cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, all these contentions were raised at the time of hearing of main appeal which were elaborately dealt with and discussed in the impugned judgment. The scope of review is limited and it does not allow rehearing, re-appraisal or appreciation of evidence afresh.
4. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any ground justifying review of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed.