' JAVED IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 21-3-2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Criminal Miscellaneous No,2 of 2002 submitted for suspension of sentence of 14 years awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 4-12-2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif has been dismissed.
2. After having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record it was observed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court as follows:-- ' "The statement of the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C., examined in the context of evidence of the P.Ws. Prima facie establishes that the petitioner has murdered Riaz Shah. The grounds urged in support of this petition relate to deeper appreciation of evidence which can only be examined at the time of hearing of the appeal. This petition has no merit and is dismissed."
3. Heard Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner who, inter alia, contended that merits of the case should have been examined by the learned High Court and in absence whereof the application preferred under section 426, Cr.P.C.
Could not have been disposed of which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. At this juncture it is to be noted that petitions bearing Nos.86-L to 89-L of 2002 involving the identical question of law have been rejected by this Court with the following observations:-- "After having a careful scrutiny of the entire record and the authorities referred to in the above reproduced order we are not persuaded to agree with Sardar Muhammad Latif than Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner that it was mandatory, obligatory and bounden duty of the learned High Court to have examined the case on merits and should have dilated upon the contentions as agitated in depth while deciding application under section 426, Cr.P.C. For the simple reason that it is well entrenched legal position that appraisal of evidence in depth is neither warranted nor desirable while dilating upon and deciding such application. A Court should confine itself to the judgment assailed before it. A thorough scrutiny of evidence and its evaluation should be made while adjudicating upon the appeal as it would be opportune moment for doing so and not while deciding the application moved under section 426, Cr.P.C. As it would be a premature stage. A conviction cannot be set aside while exercising jurisdiction as conferred under section 426, Cr.P.C. On the grounds with reference to evidence and merits of the case which certainly require a thorough probe and deeper scrutiny of evidence which should be avoided. It is well-settled by now that ' the discretion has to be exercised judiciously by considering the relevant facts without entering or commenting upon the merits of the case. If the contention raised, requires consideration of merits, the Appellate Court would refrain from entertaining such contentions. At this stage, the Court cannot enter into a re-appraisal of evidence which should be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Where on perusal of the facts in the judgment impugned, the Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment suffers from any legal error, it would be justified to suspend the sentence and grant the bail. In this regard the reasonable and legal views expressed by the trial Court should be given due consideration and weight, but all attempts should be made neither to reappraise the evidence not to enter into the merits of the case. (Bashir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar PLD 1992 SC 463, Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCM R 183, Noor Abdullah and another v. The State 1981 SCM R 859, Jamshed Azam v. The State 1990 SCM R 1393)."
4. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice warranting no interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.