1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---By this common judgment we propose to dispose of C.P. No.451 of 1991 and C.P.
2. No.1006 of 1991. Both have arisen out of one common judgment, passed by the Special Military Court No. VII, Zone 'C', Karachi, finding the petitioners guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. read with M.L.O. No.77 and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.
3. Compensation of Rs.10,000 from each of the accused was also awarded in favour of the legal representatives of deceased Muhammad Jamil Ajmal which were recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the accused.
4. ' The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that a report had been lodged at Police Station Malir, Karachi, East, on 14-10-1991 at 10-20 hrs. by one Fazal Kareem son of Chaudhry Muhammad Bux, r/o 36/72, B'Pak Saadar Colony, Karachi, alleging that at the instigation of one Rashid, three accused, namely, Qasim driver, Shahjehan and Chunnu Badmash had caused murder of Muhammad Jamil.
5. Subsequently, it transpired from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution that both the petitioners had taken part in the alleged incident. Petitioner Amanullah is also said to have given a confession, confessing his guilt which was recorded by Magistrate Ist Class, Bakhar who had given his evidence as P.W. 14 before the learned Military Court.
6. ' We have heard Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan and Mr. Zia Awan learned Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned Advocate for the Federal Government and Mr. AA.
7. Muhammadally, learned Addl. A.-G. who has appeared on behalf of the Government of Sindh.
8. ' It may be pointed out at the very outset that the question as to powers of this Court to interfere with a conviction awarded by the Military Court was finally determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan and another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar PLD 1989 SC 26. It was held: "During the Martial Law when the fundamental rights stood suspended, Article 4 furnished the only guarantee or assurance to the citizens that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person would be taken except in accordance with law. Acts, actions or proceedings which suffered from excess or lack of jurisdiction or were coram non judice or mala fide (be it malice in fact or in law) could hardly be treated as those in accordance with law. They were thus bad even under the system which was validated by Parliament under Article 270-A on account of violation of the assurance given by Article 4. It is difficult to concede that by enacting clauses (2) and (5) the Parliament had intended to validate such acts, actions or proceedings or to put them beyond the reach of the Courts or to deprive the persons who had suffered thereunder of any remedy or relief whatsoever. There is a presumption that Legislature does not perpetuate inequity or injustice and there is no reason why such a presumption should not be invoked while interpreting clauses (2) and (5) of Article 270-A. In Zia-ur-Rehman's case, ibid, Hamoodur Rahman, C.J., observed."
9. ' In the present case, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no sufficient evidence led by the prosecution warranting conviction of the petitioners by the Special Military Court and the evidence produced before the Court suffers from material contradiction giving rise to an inference that the same was tainted with malice against the accused. Support has also been sought from the case of Sabur-ur-Rahman and another v.
10. Government of Sindh and 3 others PLD 1989 Kar. 572 wherein it was held that: "High Court is competent to examine evidence in a case to find out whether the impugned order was based on no evidence or a complete misreading of evidence."
11. ' It was further held that:-- "Where the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support impugned judgment or conviction was as a result of misreading of evidence the High Court will not hesitate to interfere in such a case."
12. ' Turning to the facts of the instant case, it may be pointed out that although the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and improvements were made by the prosecution in the case by resiling from its original version are not without foundation, but nevertheless the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in case of conviction awarded by the Military Court is clearly defined by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar, reference of which has just been made in this judgment.
13. According to the parameters laid down in the said judgment, interference by this Court is permitted only in cases where the proceedings suffer on account of lack of jurisdiction, coram non judice or mala fides which would include malice in fact as well as in law. In the present case, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence suffers from material contradictions, this Court nevertheless would not by travelling beyond such parameters take upon itself the task of reassessm ent of evidence in the case as would be done by an Appellate Court. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that there was evidence against the petitioners on the basis of which the Special Military Court found them guilty of the offence. Consequently, even if this Court is of the opinion that the conviction awarded to the accused in case was not justified on the basis of such evidence, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Special Military Court while it is exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the facts of the case in Sabur-ur-Rehman and another v. Government of Sindh and 3 others reliance upon which has been placed by the learned counsel are distinguishable. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioners have already undergone about 18 years' imprisonment but under the circumstances we are unable to provide them any relief while remaining within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case as has been pointed out by us earlier.
14. ' In the result, these petitions are dismissed. The parties are left to bear leRtheir own costs.