1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 10-7-1991 petitioner Farmoz was convicted by the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Quetta for the offence under section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to suffer three years imprisonment, five stripes and fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of -payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2. On 4-8-1991 an application under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 was moved before the learned Sessions Judge for release of the convict on probation.
3. Vide order, dated 18-8-1991 the learned Judge rejected his application on the ground that he was charged for the offence which carries maximum sentence for imprisonment of life and same was not covered by the section. This order has been challenged before this Court in revision petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Javed, Advocate for the applicant. The crucial point involved in this petition is whether maximum sentence provided under penal section or sentence awarded to convict has to be considered for his release on probation under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960.
5. To appreciate the point involved in this petition, it would be useful to reproduce section 5 which reads as under:-- Section 5. (a) any male person is convicted of an offence not being an offence under Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or under section 216-A, 328, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 455 or 458 of that Code or an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, or
(b) any female person is convicted of any offence other than an offence punishable with death.
6. A mere glance at the section reflects that a Court is competent to make a probation order in case of male person when he is convicted for an offence which does not fall under Chapter VI, VII of the P.P.C., or under section 216-A, 328, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 455 or 458, P.P.C. Or the offence punishable with death or transportation for life.
7. In case of female person, if she is convicted for an offence other than an offence punishable with death.
8. Manifestly the case of the petitioner is not covered by the sections provided under P.P.C. It falls within the category of offence punishable with' death or imprisonment for life. He was charged for an offence under section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 which carries maximum I sentence of imprisonment for life. The learned Judge, therefore, has rightly observed that as the applicant was charged for an offence carrying sentence of imprisonment for life, therefore, was not entitled for relief.
9. Before parting with the judgment there is another important point relating to the jurisdiction of a court empowered under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 to exercise jurisdiction for release of convict.
10. Subsection (1) of the above said section defines the Court and subsection (2) confers authority on the Court for release of convicts on probation.
11. For reference sake section 3 is reproduced as under:--
(3) Courts empowered under the Ordinance--- (1) The following Courts shall be the Courts empowered to exercise powers under this Ordinance, namely:-- (a)A High Court; (b)A Court of Session; (e)A District Magistrate; (d)A Sub-Divisional Magistrate; (e)A Magistrate of the 1st Class; and (f)Any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf.
12. (2)A Court may exercise powers under this Ordinance, whether the case comes before it for original hearing or on appeal or in revision.
(3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------..
13. Subsection (2) clearly visualizes the stages where a Court can release a convict on probation. From the analysis of subsection (2) it emerges that a Court of original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction before whom case comes for hearing is competent to pass such order; and one a matter is finally adjudicated upon by above said Courts, they cease to have jurisdiction to entertain an application for release of convicts on probation. Indeed Courts after exhaustively exercising jurisdiction become functus officio to exercise the authority.
14. In the case in hand the convict was sentenced on 10-7-1991. He moved application for his release on probation on 4-8-1991, therefore, Court had no jurisdiction to accede to the request of the petitioner.
15. For the reasons shown hereinabove the petition fails which is dismissed accordingly in limine.