' IBAD_UR_REHMAN , LODHI, J, --- The, petitioner was convicted and sentenced by a Field General Court Martial. When to serve-out the sentence, the person of the petitioner was handed over initially to the Superintendent, District Jail, Sialkot -a warrant of commitment was issued to the said jail authority, wherein the-details of the conviction and sentence on three charges were provided to the following effect:---
(i) First charge under Section 59 of Pakistan Army Act read with Section 11-F(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for professing to belong a proscribed organization.
(ii) Second charge was laid under Section 31(d) of Pakistan Army Act, for attempting to seduce a person in the military force of Pakistan from his allegiance to the Government of Pakistan.
(iii) Third charge was laid again under Section 59 of Pakistan Army Act for being party to. Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. and by means to one sentence of all such offences the petitioner was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonement for five years and also dismissal from service. The sentence was made effective w.e.f, 20.06.20012 and warrant of commitment so issued carried a date of issuance as 03.08.2012.
Subsequently, on 12.07.2012 the petitioner was shifted to Central Jail Adyala, Rawalpindi, where still he is lodged.
2. On behalf of the petitioner, his wife moved the Home Department in Government of the Punjab, by means of a representation seeking remissions and other facilities admissible under Prison Rules.
Such representation was declined by the Home Department, Government of the Punjab and such refusal was communicated to the wife of the petitioner through letter dated 31.08.2015 intimating that since the petitioner was sentenced under Section 11(F)(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, he is not entitled to any kind of remission in view of the provisions of Section 21F of the said Act.
3. Such refusal has been called in question by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition being an aggrieved person of passage of the impugned order by the Home Department, Government of the Punjab.
4. The report and parawise comments from the respondents side did contain the same position as has been-pleaded in the impugned refusal mainly on the strength of the provisions of Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as well as Rule 214-A of Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, ' Home Department, Government of the Punjab in its report and parawise comments has additionally placed reliance on two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Shah Hussain v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 460) and Nazar Hussain and another v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1021) with the contention that no remission to a convict under Anti-Terrorism Act is available.
5. The parties have been arguing mainly on the concept of a relief available under. Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And for that purpose from both the sides, the above referred law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was referred. In Shah Hussain's case, it was the conclusion that benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is available to all the prisoners irrespective of the fact under which penal clauses, they have been convicted, but benefit of said Section was not available to the convicts of offences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, and the offence of Karo Kari and where the law applicable, prohibits itself to such relief, whereas, in Nazar Hussain's case mainly the powers of the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, are discussed, which both have no nexus with the point involved in the present petition.
6. Both the sides have never addressed the Court on the real question involved as to whether remissions in view of Pakistan 'Prison Rules, 1978 can be refused to a person convicted by a Field General 'Court Martial and sentenced under three charges including the one under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
7. The, petitioner was convicted under Sections 31(d) and 59 of Pakistan Army Act read with Section 11-F(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and in compliance of the requirements of Rule 54 of Pakistan Military Rules one sentence of five years was imposed in addition to dismissal from service. The effect of one sentence for all the offences is to be analysed and also it is to be looked into as to whether if under one offence remissions are not permissible to a prisoner, whether such restraint would equally be applicable for offences under other laws, where such restriction is not imposed in that other law.
8. In the present case remissions have been denied to the petitioner simply for the reason that he has been convicted for an offence under Section 11-F(2) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and in view of the barring clause i.e, Section 21-F of the same Act, a convict under any provision of Anti Terrorism Act would not be entitled to get any remission. The important fact to be noted is that maximum sentence for an offence under Section 11-F(2) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 is six months. Now it is to be seen as to whether length of the "one, sentence" of five years can be presumed for the offence under Section 11-F(2) also despite the fact that for such offence maximum sentence available under the law is six months and further that whether a barring clause refusing remission to a convict under any provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 can be made applicable in case of a prisoner convicted and sentenced by ' Act, 2012, an appeal from an order passed by a Member of the N.I.R.C. Lay to the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. The law does not place any restriction on the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. To pass an interim order.
11. It is settled law that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in an interim order passed by a Special Court or a Tribunal constituted under the law unless, the same is wholly without jurisdiction, coram non judice or male fide. In the case of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Vs. The State, reported as 1999 SCM R 1447, it has been held that "it is well-settled that orders at the interlocutory stages should not be brought to the higher Courts to obtain fragmentary decisions, as it tends to harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law, even reducing the right of appeal". Law to the same effect has been laid down by the Superior Courts in the cases of Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, reported as 2015 SCIVIR 233, Our Muhammad Khan Nasir Vs. Muhammad Shafiq Tareen, reported as PLD 2014 Balochistan 152 and Habib Bank Ltd. Vs. Judge Banking Court, reported as 2015 CLD 187.5.
12. As the petitioner is at liberty to take oppose the appeal filed by respondent No, 2 before the learned Full Bench of the N.I.R.C., and take the grounds agitated in this writ petition before the said appellate forum, I feel that interference in the proceedings before the said appellate forum is not warranted. Consequently, I find this writ petition not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.