' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- Through this petition leave is sought against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Honourable High Court of Sindh dated 7-10-2004 upholding the conviction of the petitioner Nadir Shah under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with sections 302/149, P.P.C. And the sentence of life imprisonment and payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased victim of offence was called in question.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case stated in the F.I.R. No,212 of 1998 lodged at Police Station Liaquatabad appear to be that the informant, S.-I. Noor Nawab Khattak of Sachal Rangers along with some other officials of law enforcement agencies were patrolling in and distributing food to the personnel/officials performing duties in various pickets in Liaqatabad area. The petitioner who is stated to be Incharge of Unit No,64 of MQM along with his companions including Minn, Obaid, Junaid, Asif etc. Emerged raising slogans of police and rangers Murdabad. They further shouted that they would not spare rangers and started firing on the informant and his companions. As a consequence Hawaldar Mumtaz Ali who had come down from the vehicle and Sepoy Dildar Hussain who was standing on it got seriously injured. The informant and his companions opened fire in self-defence but the accused persons managed to escape taking advantage of the narrow streets. The injured were rushed to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where Sepoy Dildar Hussain succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter an F.I.R. Was lodged and investigation commenced.
3. It appears that some of the accused persons including Junaid were arrested and sent up for trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court in 1999. The Anti-Terrorism Court vide judgment dated 19-5-1999 convicted Junaid, Faisal, Razzaq and Imran and imposed death sentences upon them. On appeal to the High Court however the conviction of the latter three was set aside on the ground that their names were not stated in the F.I.R. And they were not identified in the identification parade.
Nevertheless the conviction of Junaid was maintained on the ground that his name was stated in the F.I.R. And the informant had stated in the F.I.R. That he knew Junaid. Other prosecution witnesses had also corroborated the informant. However, his death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment and he was also directed to pay compensation to the heirs of Dildar Hussain in the sum of Rs,50,000 and Mumtaz Ali to the extent of Rs,10,000. Junaid preferred an appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 28-9-2001 through an elaborate judgment, the extracts wherefrom have been reproduced in the judgment of the High Court impugned through this petition.
4. The petitioner however, came to be arrested on 19-7-2000 and was tried subsequently, along with absconder Ubaid and after a full fledged separate trial was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the heirs of Dildar Hussain and Rs,10,000 to Mumtaz Ali. The petitioner appealed against the judgment of the trial Court but his conviction and sentence was maintained in the impugned judgment of the Honourable High Court, dated 7-10-2004.
5. We have carefully heard learned counsel and gone through the entire record available before us including the impugned judgment of the High Court. It appears that the prosecution case was primarily founded upon eye-witness account of five witnesses who fully supported the prosecution version and four of them clearly implicated the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The trial Court as well the High Court found their evidence confidence inspiring which could not be shattered by defence through crosscexamination. The delay of few hours in lodging the F.I.R. Has been fully explained inasmuch as the victims of the offence were first taken to Hospital and the F.I.R.
Was recorded thereafter. The entire evidence has been carefully analyzed in the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. It was also noticed that another co-accused Junaid had been earlier convicted and such conviction was not only maintained by the High Court but this Court as well upon a further appeal extracts wherefrom have been extensively quoted. As such we are fully satisfied that the impugned judgment of the Honourable High Court was entirely unexceptionable and calls for no interference by this Court. For these reasons the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused vide our short order announced on 21-10-2008.
6. Before parting however, we cannot help noticing some disturbing aspects regarding conduct of proceedings before this Court borne out from the record before us. This petition filed in November, 2004 had actually come up for hearing before a Bench of this Court headed by the present Honourable Chief Justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner it was dismissed through a detailed order, dated 4-4-2006. However, a petition for review appended with a certificate of the same learned counsel was filed wherein it was contended that since the Chief Justice had earlier, while being on the Bench of the Sindh High Court, authored the appellate judgment in the case of Junaid (tried earlier) propriety required that the leave petition should have been heard by another Bench. Though it is doubtful whether any impropriety was involved inasmuch as the earlier judgment emanated from an altogether separate trial, yet this Court keeping in view the highest norms of detachment and grace allowed the review petition, recalled the order, of dismissal and directed that the petition be heard by another Bench vide order dated 1-8-2007. Nevertheless the conduct of the counsel was deprecated and he was directed to be more careful. However, once again on 6-10-2008 the same learned counsel made an entirely misleading statement before the Court which is evident from the order passed to the following effect:--- "The judgment of the trial Court further reveals that co-accused Muhammad Faisal, Muhammad Razzak, Muhammad Imran, Syed Junaid and Taha were also convicted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to whether any of the co-accused filed appeals before the High Court and as to the result of those appeals."
7. Is it to be presumed that learned counsel had not even read para.11 of the judgment impugned before. This Court wherein the fate of each appeal has been clearly explained or that he granted a certificate for review without even reading the High Court judgment in Special Terrorism Appeal No,21 of 1999 (a copy whereof has been interestingly filed at pages 37 to 46) clearly showing that the earlier appeals of four persons were disposed of through the same judgment? We regret to say that such conduct of senior counsel tends to destroy the sanctity, which Courts have always been granting to statement made at the bar and more particularly certificates in writing filed by senior advocates. It is important that an amount of trust and confidence needs to be maintained between the Bench and the Bar for smooth functioning of a judicial system and such instances we regret to say tend to impair that confidence.