Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Syed Altaf Shah, petitioner, has filed instant petition under Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, read with Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking review of the order of this Court dated 12.6.2006, dismissing Criminal Petition No, 63-P of 2005 and maintaining judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 28.4.2005.
2. Facts of the case have been elaborately mentioned in the impugned order and need not be reiterated here. Suffice is to state that huge quantity of 'chars' weighing 160 KGs, was recovered from secret cavities of Datsun Pickup . bearing Registration No, 9674/DGC. The petitioner was found driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The petitioner was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge Swabi and at the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 14.7.2004, petitioner found guilty of the said charge, was convicted under Section 9 (C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs,50,000/- or in default whereof to undergo further two years R.I with benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred criminal appeal before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.4.2005. The petitioner also filed appeal in this Court, which met the same fate, vide order impugned herein.
3. Mr. Abdul Latif Yousafzari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contended that material on record has not been appreciated in the right direction; that petitioner had no conscious knowledge of the presence of contraband 'chars' in the secret cavities of the vehicle in question; and that original owner was let off and the petitioner was made escape goat. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel contended that petitioner was a innocent carrier and this aspect of the case was not taken into consideration by this Court while awarding sentence to the petitioner. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Muhammad Rafique versus The State, (1990 SCM R 602), Mst. Husna Saadat versus The State, (2006 SCM R 1041), and Niaz-ud-Din versus The State, (2007 SCM R 206).
4. We have heard learned counsel and carefully examined the record. We find that the impugned order suffers from no error or mistake warranting review of the same. All the points agitated while arguing the review petition have been dilated upon and decided after going through entire record with care and caution. From whatever angle the matter may be examined, no case of review is made out. This is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in review. Scope of review is very limited and review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other. Moreover any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if the same has been resolved illegally. Allah Ditta and others vs. Mehrban and others, (1992 SCR 145), Zafar Iqbal vs. Allotment Committee of Municipal Committee of Municipal Committee Mirpur and others, (1994 SCR 157) and Sh. Mehdi Hassan vs. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others, (2007 SCM R 755).
5. The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a re-hearing of the matter and as finally attaches to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review. Accordingly, in keeping with the limits of the review jurisdiction, it is futile to reconsider the submissions, which converge on the merits of the decision. It needs no reiteration that before an error can be a ground for review, it is necessary that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record, that is, it must be so manifest, so clear that no Court could permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of fact or of law, but it must be an error which is self evident and floating on the surface and does not require any elaborate discussion or process of rationcination. It is not denied that if the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgment or order cannot be obtained on the grounds that the Colour took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible. Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal or petition but not produced. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as rightly urged, are nothing but reiteration of the same grounds, which were urged at the hearing of petition, but were rejected by this Court after consideration. These contentions cannot be allowed to be raised again in review proceedings as in the garb of proceedings for review, the petitioner cannot obtain rehearing of the petition.
6. There is nothing on the file to show that the petitioner was carrier. No such plea has been taken by the petitioner in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by this Court and dealt with appropriately.
7. In the circumstances, finding no ground for review, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.