1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 21-2- 1979 passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 898 of 1979.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentence to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 27-7-1974. His sentence was confirmed by the Lahore High Court on 16-10-1975. The petition for leave against it was dismissed by this Court. A mercy petition was preferred but this too was rejected. It appears that a date for the execution of the petitioner was also fixed (25-1-77) but the execution was somehow not carried out and some further representations were made. But these too ultimately remained unavailing and another date for his execution was fixed (5-10-1978). The petitioner then moved a Writ Petition (W. P. No. 4595/1978) before the Lahore High Court but the said petition was dismissed in limine on 3-10-1978. The very next day he moved a petition for leave before this Court Cr. P. No. 525/78) and the execution was stayed. But the petition was rejected by this Court by its order dated the 7th December, 1978.
3. Despite the above decision, the petitioner again moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction (W. P.
4. No. 898/79) principally on the ground that since some 7/8 years has elapsed since he was arrested and he had remained in the condemned cell for more than two years, he could not, in accordance with the Instructions bearing No. 23/1/43/GG(P) dated 26-2-43 from the Secretary to the Governor- General (Public) to the Home Secretary to the Government of Punjab, be executed. A copy of these instructions was not enclosed but attention was invited be the judgment of the Lahore High Court reported in PLD 1952 Lah. 597 wherein a reference is made to them. This petition came up for hearing before the same learned Judge in the High Court, who had disposed of the earlier petition, and he dismissed this petition also on 21-2-1979 observing that the above point could have been taken in the earlier petition and that the petitioner cannot be allowed to canvass his case piecemeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Rana Bashir Ahmad, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the instructions relied upon in the second writ petition were confidential instructions and could not be obtained and were not being supplied. Hence this point was not raised in the first writ petition and in the second writ petition also, reliance had to be placed on the reference made to them in a reported judgment.
6. The learned Judge in the High Court bad overlooked this aspect of the matter and it was submitted that when the question was of life and death such technicalities of procedure should not be allowed to stand in the way of doing complete justice. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may direct the Home Department to the Govern--ment of Punjab to produce the instructions referred to above and this Court should direct the authorities to act in accordance with the said instructions.
7. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had been arrested some seven years ago and had been in the condemned cell since 27-7-1974 and could not be executed in the light of the said instructions.
8. We do not find much force in these submissions. Apart from the fact that the petitioner could, with reasonable diligence, have urged the above ground in the High Court in the second round of litigation as the Judgment in which the instructions were referred to was delivered as long ago as in 1952, the High Court could not in writ jurisdiction enforce the instructions being relied upon. The said instructions are obviously directory and arc of the nature of guidelines to the Home Department to be kept in view while dealing with mercy petitions. Such instructions could not be enforced by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction. We, there--fore, do not find much force in this petition. It is, however, still open to the Executive Authorities to consider whether if would be right to hang the petitioner after 7 or 8 years of his arrest, more than four years of which have been spent in the condemned cell. This petition subject, to above observation, is hereby dismissed.