JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. -- The petitioner impugns the order passed by the High Court dated 15.10.2012 which is in the following terms:- "While referring judgment reported in 2012 SCM R 997 (Mazhar Ahmad v. The State and another), learned counsel submits that the appellant is present in Court. He has not surrendered himself as per judgment dated 15.12.2012, passed by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Chopra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. He is directed to surrender himself first and then this petition as well as Criminal Miscellaneous will be taken up.
Adjourned".
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order and record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case titled Mazhar Ahmad v. The State and another (2012 SCM R 997) to contend that surrender by a convict is not a condition precedent to his appeal being entertained. We have gone through the cited judgment and note that it is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the cited case, the convict had been denied relief as his application for suspension of sentence was dismissed. In the present case the Court has not decided the application for suspension of sentence but has directed the petitioner to surrender and then his petition will be heard. It is also to be noted that in the present case the office objection raised by the High Court was over-ruled by an order dated 10.10.2012 on the administrative side.
Learned counsel has argued that in view of the said order, the impugned order could not have been passed. This submission is misconceived because the order passed on the administrative side only related to the office objection which was over-ruled. The application for suspension of sentence had to be heard on the judicial side. The order passed by the Court, reproduced above, is consistent with the long established practice and does not require any interference.
3. This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.