ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. -- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1279 of 2015 in Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015: Through this miscellaneous application it has been prayed that Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015 filed by the applicant/petitioner may be heard and decided by the Full Court or a Larger Bench of this Court. We note that no such application has been filed by the applicant in the connected Criminal Review Petition No. 124 of 2015. The only ground mentioned in this application is that the review petition filed by the applicant requires adjudication of some very important religious and legal questions but no such question has been identified in the application. The law is settled by now that a party to a case cannot claim or demand that its case may be heard by any number of Judges of a Court desired by the party and also that a party to a case has no say in the matter of constitution of Benches of the Court. In the present case the appeals filed by the applicant and the State against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad had been heard and decided by a 3-member Bench of this Court and, thus, we see no reason why the review petition filed against the judgment of this Court in those appeals may not be heard and decided by a Bench of equal number, Apart from that, as the present application falls to identify the so-called very Important religious and legal questions involved in the review petition, therefore, the prayer made through this application cannot presumptively be appreciated or allowed before hearing the review petition itself, For all these reasons this miscellaneous application is dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 1320 of 2015 in Criminal Review Petition No, 123 of 2015:
2. As Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1279 of 2015 filed in Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015 has been dismissed by us, therefore, this miscellaneous application seeking stoppage of hearing of Criminal Review Petition No, 123 of 2015 till the decision of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1279 of 2015 has lost its relevance, Dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1280 of 2015 in Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015:
3. Through this miscellaneous application the applicant/petitioner has sought permission to place on the record of Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015 some documents which had statedly already been produced before this Court at the of hearing of the main appeals and some other opinions, material and documents which were not a part of the record of the main case till passage of the judgment under review by this Court. The documents which are already available on the record of the case cannot be allowed to be resubmitted. As regards the other opinions, material and documents It Is not claimed by the applicant that the same were not in existence or not available or known to the applicant till passage of the judgment under review by this Court and, thus, such opinions, material and documents cannot be allowed to be brought on the record of the review petition or be permitted to be made a basis of review. A document not properly and lawfully adduced In evidence and not proved according to the law before the appropriate Court cannot be considered or be allowed to be brought on the record of a review petition pending before this Court, This miscellaneous application Is, therefore, dismissed, Criminal Review Petitions No. 123 and 124 of 2015:
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these review petitions at some length and have carefully attended to the relevant record of the case referred to by him.
5. In the memoranda of these review petitions as well as through the oral submissions made before us it has been maintained that upon completion of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties In the main appeals a short order had been passed by this Court on 7.10,2015, the detailed Judgment subsequently released by the Court did not even refer to the short order dated 7.10.2015 and the short order as well as the detailed judgment carried the same date. We have found this stance to be utterly misconceived and against the record because no short order had been passed by this Court on 7.10.2015 at all. As a matter of fact after completion of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on 7.10.2015 the matter was deliberated upon for some time and then on the same day it was orally announced in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the appeal filed by the State was allowed and the convictions and sentences of the petitioner recorded by the Trial Court were restored. Oral announcement of the decision by this Court on 7.10.2015 was in terms of Rule 1 of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and was in accord with the prevalent practice according to which the Court may announce a decision orally and thereafter may dictate, pass and release a written judgment carrying the date on which the decision was orally announced.
6. It has also been averred in the memoranda of the present review petitions and has been argued before us that the (non-existent) short order passed by this Court on 7.10.2015 had been passed by the Court without even having an opportunity to attend to the material produced before the Court during the arguments which material threw some light on and explained the Islamic concept of blasphemy and its punishment. This ground too has been found by us to be ill-conceived. After completion of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the Court had formed an opinion that the petitioner had failed to prove on the record through any legally admissible evidence that the victim namely Mr. Salman Taseer had committed the offence of blasphemy within the meanings of Section 295-C, PPC and also that by virtue of the provisions of Articles 203- G and 230 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 interpretation of the Injunctions of Islam was beyond the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. After formation of such opinions by the Court there was hardly any occasion for the Court to go through the above-mentioned material before oral announcement of the decision. It may, however, be pointed that in the final judgment passed by this Court the above-mentioned material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments had specifically been mentioned and appropriate comments had been recorded in that regard with reference to the above-mentioned opinions formed by the Court.
7. With reference to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Enforcement of Shari'ah Act, 1991 and Section 338-F, PPC it has been maintained in the memoranda of these review petitions and has been argued before us that while deciding the petitioner's case this Court was to be guided by the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). This contention overlooks the fact that in the considered opinion of the Court the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus on him to prove through legally admissible evidence the alleged commission of blasphemy by Mr. Salman Taseer and, thus, there did not arise any occasion for seeking guidance from the Injunctions of Islam regarding the concept of blasphemy and its punishment.
8. As regards the exception taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contents of paragraphs Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of the judgment passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in this case it may be pointed out that the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard had been duly recorded by this Court in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment under review. It had been held by this Court in the judgment under review that the petitioner had failed to prove through any legally admissible evidence that the victim namely Mr. Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy. It had also been held by this Court in the judgment under review that in view of the provisions of Articles 203-G and 230 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the matter of interpretation of the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) falls within the exclusive domain, power and jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court, the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology with reference to an existing or purposed law and essentially this Court's jurisdiction in such matters is limited to application of the principles where they are settled. It is but obvious that the same also applied to the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad. As in the judgment under review this Court had refrained from entering into the matter of interpretation of the Injunctions of Islam qua blasphemy and its punishment, therefore, the same was also expected of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad. In this view of the matter the observations made by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in the above-mentioned paragraphs of its judgment passed in this case could be treated as obiter dicta.
9. As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the merits of the case and in respect of the petitioner's sentences are concerned we have found that through such contentions an attempt has been made to reargue the case on those issues which attempt falls outside the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court. A review is surely not a rehearing of the main case. All such contentions have already been attended to in the judgment under review in some detail and considered findings have been recorded by this Court in those regards. No error patent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua such findings of this Court.
10.For the reasons recorded above the captioned review petitions are dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1278 of 2015 in Criminal Review Petition No. 123 of 2015: 11.As the main review petitions have been dismissed by this Court, therefore, the present miscellaneous application seeking interim relief regarding suspension of execution of the applicant/petitioner's sentence of death has lost its relevance. Dismissed.