' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Daniyal alias Dani respondent had allegedly murdered one Naeem Masih at about 5-00 p.m. On 7-5-2006 and in respect of that murder F.I.R. No, 94 was registered at Police Station Zaman Town, District Korangi Town, Karachi at 9-45 p.m. During the same evening for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. After a full-dressed trial the learned Vith-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East convicted the respondent for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 14-11-2012 and sentenced him to death and to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. It was ordered that the amount of fine, if realized, was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation. The respondent challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi through Criminal Appeal No,322 of 2012 which was heard by a learned Division Bench of the said Court along with Murder Reference No,503 of 2012 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the respondent by the learned trial court. On 21-5-2014 after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and going through the record a learned Division Bench of the said Court comprising of Sajjad Ali Shah and Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, JJ. Passed the following order:-- "For the reasons to be recorded later on this appeal is dismissed. Death sentenced awarded by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Reference stands responded in affirmative."
' The record shows that on 26-5-2014 the said learned Division Bench passed the following order:-- "While recording reasons, we have found that the appellant is a very young boy and the counsel appearing for the appellant did not invite our attention to his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
And perhaps was a first offender, therefore, we would like to re-hear this appeal. Let notice be issued to the Counsel for the appellant as well as to the Prosecutor General and counsel for the complainant for 28-5-2014 at 11-00 a.m. Head Bailiff to serve the notices and be present in Court on 28-5-2014. Production Order be also issued through Fax. The Assistant Registrar should also telephonically assure that the custody of the appellant is produced definitely."
' Both the above mentioned orders were duly signed by both the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and there is no dispute about that fact. The record reveals that on 28-5-2014 the above mentioned appeal and the connected Murder. Reference were reheard by the same learned Division Bench of the High Court and after rehearing the learned counsel for all the parties and re-attending to the record of the case the following order had been passed:- "Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the appellant produced in custody.
Reserved for judgment."
' It was in that backdrop that on 30-5-2014 a detailed judgment had been passed by the same learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the respondent's appeal on its merits but reducing his sentence of death to imprisonment for life with the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The connected Murder Reference was, thus, answered in the negative. The said detailed judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court was assailed before this Court by the State through Criminal Petition No, 81-K of 2014 which was accepted by this Court on 9-10-2014 and leave to appeal had been granted in the following terms:-- "It is contended by the learned Additional Prosecutor General that the learned High Court on 21st May 2014 had passed a short order in Criminal Appeal No, 322 of 2012 dismissing the appeal of the respondent No, 1 and maintained the death penalty awarded by the trial Court. He submits that thereafter the Court became functus officio and could not commute the death penalty of the respondent to life imprisonment by its reasons in support of short order, which were reduced in writing on 30th May, 2014. He, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the case of Wafi Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Farooq Hamid and others (2010 SCM R 1125).
2. The contention raised requires consideration. We grant leave, inter alia, on the aforesaid ground.
Notice be issued to the respondent (convict) as well as to the complainant. Learned Additional Prosecutor General undertakes to implead the complainant as one of the respondents in these proceedings by filing amended memo of appeal."
2. We have heard the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel. For Robin Masih complainant. The office has reported that the respondent is confined in a jail and he has already been served with a notice of this appeal. It appears that the respondent has decided not to make arrangements for his representation before this Court.
3. The only ground urged before us by the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh appearing for the appellant/State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant is that after having passed and singed the short order dated 21-5-2014 (reproduced above) the learned Division Bench of the High Court could not have fixed the matter for rehearing and it could not, thus, change its earlier decision at any later stage. They have maintained that a singed short order of the Court is akin to a final judgment of the Court and in the absence of any review jurisdiction a High Court cannot alter the substance of the judgment already announced and signed by it and in this respect they have drawn support from the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of The State v. Asif Adil and others (1997 SCM R 209), Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others (PLD 2010 SC 61), Dr. Agha Ijaz Ali Pathan v. The State (2010 SCM R 322), Wafi Associates (Pvt.), Limited v. Farooq Hamid and others (2010 SCM R 1125), D.G. A.N.F. Rawalpindi and others v. Munawar Hussain Manj and others (2014 SCM R 1334) and a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of L and B (Children) (2013 SCM R 842). We understand that the said contention of the learned Additional Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant is well founded and is amply supported by the above mentioned precedent cases. It goes without saying that in a case where the judgment is reserved a Court is well within its jurisdiction to fix the matter for rehearing of any point which needs further elaboration but if a judgment is announced with a final verdict regarding the fate of an accused person and such announcement is through a short order to be followed by detailed reasons and such snort order is actually signed by the Members of the Bench then the Court is left with no jurisdiction to change the verdict subsequently or even to fix the case for rehearing on the merits or even on the question of sentence unless such Court possesses review jurisdiction which may even be exercised suo motu. In the case in hand the matter was that of a criminal appeal and in such a matter the High Court of Sindh, Karachi had no review jurisdiction available to it and, therefore, once the above mentioned short order had been passed by it deciding the fate of the respondent and of his appeal then the High Court was subsequently bereft of any jurisdiction to order rehearing of the matter for the purposes of considering alteration of its earlier announced judgment.
4. The above mentioned factual and legal position has created a very difficult situation for us because if we treat the earlier short order of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi to be the final judgment of that Court then we do not have any detailed judgment of the High Court available vis- a-vis confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the respondent and if the subsequent detailed judgment released by the High Court is to be treated as its final judgment then the same cannot be accepted as such because that detailed judgment was bereft of any legal validity impinging upon its very existence. Faced with this bizarre situation we have decided to send the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision of the respondent's appeal and the connected Murder Reference on all aspects of the case after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties because that way, we consider, the interests of justice may be served well.
5. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed, the impugned detailed judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi on 30-5-2014 is set aside, the short/interim orders passed by the said learned Division Bench on 21-5-2014, 26-5-2014 and 28-5-2014 are also set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court of Sindh, Karachi for a fresh decision of the respondent's Criminal Appeal No, 322 of 2012 and the connected Murder Reference No,3 of 2012 after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and attending to the record of the case afresh. As the learned Division Bench comprising of Sajjad Ali Shah and Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, JJ. Has already rendered conflicting opinions regarding the fate of the respondent and his appeal, therefore, it shall be in the fitness of things if the post-remand hearing of the above mentioned appeal and the connected Murder Reference is undertaken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi comprising of Hon'ble Judges other than the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench who had passed the impugned judgment and the above mentioned orders.