' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed that respondents may be directed to release the petitioner from jail by allowing him remissions granted to the convicted persons by the President of Pakistan from time to time.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner was an accused of murder case who was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, D.G. Khan. Vide judgment dated 3-6-1999, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 7 ATA, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
3. The petitioner challenged the said judgment of the learned trial Court through an appeal which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20-9-2001. Against both the judgments, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.677-L of 2001, which was also dismissed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, vide judgment dated 6-11-2003.
4. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has granted remissions to different convicts but the petitioner has not been given benefit of the said remissions and certain circulars have been placed on record in this regard. First circular is dated 8th March, 2002, second is dated 26th March, 2002, 3rd is dated 2nd May, 2001 and the 4th is dated 13th August, 2001.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was declared 16/17 years of age by the learned trial Court and being a child under section 21-F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 remissions could be granted to him, which are being denied illegally. It is further contended that the respondents are bound to grant remissions to the petitioner and their action may be declared illegal and unlawful with direction to grant him remissions and also to release him from jail.
6. On the contrary, learned Assistant Advocate-General opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner was involved in sectarianism case and was convicted and sentenced under section 7 of ATA, therefore, even according to the circulars referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remissions cannot be granted to a convict of terrorist acts.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the circulars attached with this petition through which Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control has issued instructions regarding the grant of remissions to the convicts. In all the circulars issued under Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the different eves it has been specifically mentioned that the remissions will be granted to the prisoners convicted for life imprisonment except those convicted for murder, espionage, anti-State activities, sectarianism, rape (under section 377 P.P.C.), robbery, dacoity, kidnapping/abduction and terrorist acts (as defined in the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance (Second amendment)).
8. Even from the perusal of the circulars which are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that the authority which has granted remissions has withheld remission to the convicts of terrorist acts. The petitioner having been found guilty under section 7 ATA is not entitled to grant of remissions as per instructions contained in the said circulars and this Court cannot grant remissions to the petitioner in disregard of the said circulars.
9. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 21-F of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 remissions can be granted to the child accused is concerned, this argument for the time being is irrelevant as remission can be granted in accordance with the circulars issued by the competent authority and when remissions have not been granted through the same, this Court cannot substitute its opinion while exercising jurisdiction under section 491, Cr.P.C. For the present the detention of the petitioner in jail cannot be declared illegal as according to the report dated 3- 7-2005 submitted by the Superintendent Central Jail, D.G. Khan he has still to undergo about 15 years imprisonment. Hence, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.