' The petitioner's brother, namely, Muhammad Hadayat alias Teddy, was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned trial Court, the sentence of death was confirmed by this Court, while convict's appeal before the august Supreme Court was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner convict was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence; that he belongs to a far-flung area, therefore, he was not aware about the said factum and could not agitate it before the learned trial Court, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Further submits that the Notification in question was issued by the President on 13-12-2001 while the Home Department circulated it on 15-8-2003. While concluding his submissions, learned counsel contends that all the related documents were placed before the learned Sessions Judge but the benefit in question was not extended to the convict and that it is a matter of death and life of the convict. Prays that the benefit of the said notification, being juvenile, be extended to the convict as well.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the considered view that this Court has become functus officio and cannot adjudicate upon the matter because the matter was not only decided by this Court but also by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. We are fortified our view with a judgment of the apex Court of the country in the case of Rehmatullah alias Raja v. Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore etc. (2004 SCM R 1861) wherein, after having dilated upon the Notification dated 13-12-2001 issued by the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it was held as under:- "4. No such age was ever recorded by the trial Court, hence the petitioner would not be entitled for any commutation. In fact, the question of age was never agitated before the learned trial Court, -Appellate Court as well as this Court. It is too late in the day to raise such a plea now as at the time of occurrence, his date of birth has been shown as 8-3- 1976 which was never B challenged and thus there was no occasion for the trial Court to get the ossification test conducted. Nothing has come on record showing that the age was recorded by the trial Court entitles the petitioner to such commutation which is mandatory prerequisite before any benefit is claimed." (Emphasis suppolied).
4. Respectfully following the verdict of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above case, we find no merit in this Constitutional petition which is hereby dismissed.