' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This review petition has been tiled under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Learned counsel raised question in respect of identification of the petitioner, which is not in accord with law enunciated in the judgments of this Court reported as Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State and others (2007 SCM R 670), Lai Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142) and Riaz v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1613). It may be noted that as far as the law laid down in the above-referred cases is concerned, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The learned Bench seized with the matter while taking into consideration this aspect of the case has accepted the identification to be true. The learned counsel then stated about the recovery of crime weapon, however, it is evident that the learned Bench had also dilated upon this aspect of the evidence. The learned counsel then argued that evidence of one case cannot be read into another case but he has failed to explain the proposition.
Furthermore, this contention has never been argued before and has been raised for the first time before us, therefore, cannot be allowed to be argued. He then, contended that short order was announced on 1-4-2008 whereas detailed reasons were recorded after several months, therefore, prejudice was caused to the petitioner. It is to be noted here that short order was announced in the presence of the parties immediately after hearing the argument and so far as the detailed reasons are concerned, those were recorded subsequently, resultantly no prejudice has been caused to accused persons. It would not be out of context to note that the petitioner raised following contentions at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Bench seized with the matter:-- "It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that neither the appellants' were named in the F.I.R. Nor their description by appearance was given, hence, in absence thereof the evidentiary value of the test identification parade was greatly marred; that the delay in dispatching the empties as well as the allegedly recovered weapons, to the laboratory: has rendered the report as doubtful; that since the empties recovered from the place of occurrence did not match with the weapons of offence recovered from the possession of two appellants, namely, Ahmed Khan alias Malangi and Muhammad Asghar, therefore, the case to their extent at least, was not of capital punishment".
2. The impugned. Judgment indicates that all the above grounds have been taken into consideration by the Bench. As far as raising of new ground is concerned, the same cannot be allowed to be argued as per consistent practice of this court.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the judgment dated 1-4-2008. Petition is dismissed.