The petitioner has challenged, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by Summary Military Court for nine months R.I., dismissal from service, reduction, in ranks and fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed in Pakistan Army as head clerk in S & T Branch of HQ 491 Engineer Group who committed fraud and prepared forged contingent bills dated 22.11.2000 and misappropriated Rs. 2,67,540/- which also falls an offence under Section 40 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that conviction and sentence of the petitioner be declared null and void and the petitioner be acquitted because the trial of the petitioner was coram nonjudice as the petitioner was posted out from HQ 491 Engineering Group from 22.5.2001, therefore, the trial by Headquarter 491 Engineering Group was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel farther contends that the confession of convict was not recorded in accordance with law as the convict was compelled to make a judicial confession which is a nullity in the eye of law and could not be used against the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned conviction order be set aside passed against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Council has opposed this writ petition and contends that no writ petition lies against an Army personnel. Further contends that the convict has made a voluntarily confession and thereafter it could not be challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner/convict is a habitual offender and previous convict who was convicted and punished for misappropriation in another case. In the circumstances, writ petition be .dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner/convict is an Army personnel who was charged for misappropriation of a huge amount of Rs.2,67,540/-. It is fully established that the convict prepared forged and fabricated contingent bill and received Rs.50,000/- as his share. During the trial, the convict made a confession before the Summary Military Court. The parawise comments submitted by the learned Standing Council further reveals that the petitioner was also previously convicted who was punished under Section 55 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. During the trial, while answering to a point question that do you wish to make any statement in reference to the charge or in mitigation of punishment? The convict answered I have committed a mistake and I accept it, I may be pardoned.
7. That by virtue of an expressed bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the jurisdiction of this Court is expressly barred unless the impugned judgment is mala fide, without jurisdiction or against the principles of natural justice. Record reveals that the petitioner/convict was sentenced by a Summary Military Court, which was a competent authority to punish the convict. The petitioner was provided all the remedies under the law. After, announcement of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of appeals, which was also dismissed on 24.4.2003.
7. The petitioner has utilized all the available remedies and order passed by Summary Military Court as well as by the Court of appeals are legal orders which are competent having the jurisdiction to decide the criminal cases against the convict. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments. Resultantly, the writ petition has no force, the same is dismissed.