' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above four petitions which involve identical question of law. They are directed against the judgments dated 27-11-1997 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Criminal Appeals Nos.38 to 41 of 1997, which were filed against the judgments passed by the learned Judge of Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, convicting the petitioners under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance and sentencing them to suffer R.I. For seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For further period of one year.
2. The above appeals came up for hearing before a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh on 27-11-1997 when Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners had not challenged the conviction but assailed the sentences which are excessive. On the basis of the above statement, the learned Division Bench reduced the sentences from seven years R.I. To four years R.I. And also granted them the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Since the same learned counsel, namely, Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque had made the above concession before the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we enquired from him as to how the petitioners could file the above petitions against the above judgments. His submission was that notwithstanding the above concession the High Court was obliged to examine the merits of the appeals. To reinforce the above submission, he has relied upon the following passage from the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Siddique v. The State (1971 SCM R .628, relevant at page 633-A):- "In the light of the above discussion, it appears to me that even in a case where the appeal is not pressed on merits and it is pressed only on the question of sentence, it is the duty of the Court itself to examine the evidence on the record in order to find out whether the conviction of the appellant is proper or not. Merely because the counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal on merits, the High Court is .Not relieved of its duty. To peruse the record in order to find out whether there is ample evidence against the appellant to convict him for the offence for which he has been charged. This is necessary to secure due and efficient administration of justice and also to show that the Court has applied its mind to the facts of the case and has reached on its own conclusion on the dispute between the parties."
' The above judgment was authored by Waheeduddin Ahmad, J. And concurred with by Hamoodur Rahman, C.J. And M.R. Khan, J.
4. Since the abovequoted passage supports the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and as the question raised is of public importance, we grant leave to consider, as to whether the High Court was obliged to examine the appeals of the petitioners on merits after the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that he was not assailing the conviction and whether it is open to the petitioners to file the petitions/appeals against the aforesaid judgment. Leave is, accordingly, granted.