PLJ 2012 SC 231
[Original Jurisdiction]
[Original Jurisdiction]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ
& Khilji Arif Hussain, J.
SUO MOTU ACTION
REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE POOR ELECTRICIAN, WHO
HAS BEEN PRESSURIZED BY THE POLITICAL FIGURE OF PML(N) AS WELL AS BY THE POLICE
TO ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE WITH THE ACCUSED MURDERERS OF HIS 12-YEAR OLD SON
Suo Motu Case No. 19 of 2011, decided 13.12.2011.
----S. 323 &
Scope--Amount of diyat--Object and purpose of recovery
of diyat amount is that the victim would be
compensated according to rate which was prevailing at time when compromise was
effected. [P. 233] A
Diyat--
----Minimum rate
of compensation of diyat amount was to be fixed by
Court, according to notification, issued by Federal government, on every
financial years, therefore, Supreme Court was not inclined to agree with
opinion expressed in judgment of FSC--Supreme Court declared that as far as
amount of Diyat, the same would be determined
according to prevailing rate of diyat at time when
compromise was effected, because it was the accused who actually requested the
victim party to favor and if as result, such extended then according to law,
payment of compensation would be determined and made at rate prevailing at the
time when compromise was effected and executed by Court. [P. 233] B & C
----S.
310--Value of moveable and immoveable property--According to S. 310, PPC, the
word property includes moveable and immovable property, therefore, compensation
equal to NISAB prevailing at time when compromise was effected after
determining the value of moveable and immoveable property can also be paid. [P. 233] D
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney General for
Pakistan, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana,
Addl. A.G. Punjab & Mr. Jawad Hassan, Addl. A.G.
Punjab for in Attendance.
Date of hearing:
13.12.2011.
Order
The learned
Attorney General for Pakistan
as well as the learned Additional Advocates General, Punjab ,
have addressed their arguments on the questions framed
by this Court.
2. Mr. Bilal Siddique Kamyana, CPO Faisalabad,
has submitted a report, according to which investigation is being conducted
against the accused persons namely Rana Imran and others, who are allegedly involved in the case
FIR No. 1015, dated 05.09.2011, under Sections 302, 148 and 149, PPC, PS Gulberg, Faisalabad, registered on the complaint of Shahid Ali, an electrician by profession, whose son Bilal aged about 12 years was allegedly murdered, when he alongwith the deceased and his nephew were engaged for
electrification on the marriage function of Adnan Aslam.
3. In respect of the allegation of the
complainant that he was pressurized to enter into a compromise with the accused
persons in lieu whereof he was initially paid Rs. 100,000/-; later on Rs.150,000/-, whereas an amount of Rs.400,000/- was not given to
him against the total settlement of Rs.650,000/- but it was paid after taking
notice by this Court. The bail of Rana Imran already granted to him in the said murder case in
pursuance whereof he was allowed to be released on personal surety bond was
cancelled, as against him (Rana Imran)
and another, the complainant alleged that he was pressurized to enter into the
compromise.
4. It appears that a case under Section 214, PPC
was also registered against four persons namely Ghulam
Sarwar, Zafar Iqbal, Waheed Ahmed and Khawaja Islam. Statedly, on
06.12.2011, Ghulam Sarwar
and Zafar Iqbal have been
arrested, whereas the remaining accused persons namely Khawaja
Islam and Waheed Ahmed have obtained bail from the
High Court on 12.12.2011. When we have inquired from the learned Additional
Advocate General as to why the remaining two persons have not been arrested, he
stated that steps are being taken to do the needful. We have noticed that as
far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, after
their arrest, under Section 214, PPC they were entitled to be released on bail,
which is bailable and non-compoundable offence. We
prima facie are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances, it
seems to be a case of coercion, harassment and compulsion because after making
the payment of Rs.250,000/- a cheque
amounting to Rs.400,000/- was given to the complainant from the account of one
Muhammad Ahmed for the purpose of entering into compromise and meanwhile the
matter came before this Court, therefore, the remaining payment of Rs.400,000/-
was made to the complainant.
5. Be that as it may, it is for the
investigating agency to conduct the case properly with full determination and
commitment instead of unnecessarily allowing concession to the persons, if they
are involved in the commission of offence. However, as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, if
they furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
each they should be released on bail forthwith.
6. Now turning towards the proposition of amount
of DIYAT, it is to be noted that under Section 323 of PPC, the object and
purpose of recovery of DIYAT amount is that the victim should be compensated according
to the rate which is prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected. The learned Attorney
General for Pakistan
as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab ,
both have agreed that the date of compromise could be relevant for the purpose
of determining the amount of compensation and not the date, when the offence
was committed. In this behalf, reference is made to Abdul Ghafoor
v. State (1992 SCMR 1218), Ali Sher v. State (1992 P.Cr.LJ 1583), Safdar Ali v.
State (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 202), Niaz v. State
(2009 P.Cr.J 1479). However, there is a judgment of
Federal Shariat Court reported as Ali Dost v. State
(2006 P.Cr.LJ 80) wherein fixation of amount of DIYAT
and payment of amount of DIYAT in installments was allowed, but we are of the
view that while delivering the judgment by the Federal Shariat
Court, the judgments noted hereinabove, were not considered. The minimum rate
of the compensation of DIYAT amount is to be fixed by the Court, according to
the notification, issued by the Federal Government, on every financial year,
therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the opinion expressed in the
judgment of the Federal Shariat Court . However,
following the law laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, we declare
that as far as the amount of DIYAT is concerned, the same shall be determined
according to the prevailing rate of DIYAT at the time when the compromise is
effected, because it is the accused who actually requests the victim party to favour him and if, as a result, such favour
is extended then according to the law, the payment of compensation should be
determined and made at the rate prevailing at the time when the compromise is
effected and executed by the Court.
7. Now turning to the other question regarding
moveable and immovable properties. In this behalf, it is to be noted that
according to explanation to Section 310, PPC the word property includes both
the moveable and immoveable property, therefore, compensation equal to NISAB
prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected
after determining the value of the moveable and immoveable property can also be
paid.
8. It is informed by the office that against the
Judicial Officer, who had released the accused namely Rana
Imran on his personal surety in a very casual manner,
about whom the matter was referred to the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High
Court, Lahore, disciplinary proceedings have already commenced.
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the matter
stands disposed of with direction to the Court before whom the case is pending
to dispose of the same expeditiously, as early as possible, but not later than
a period of three months.
Disposed
of.
(R.A.) Case disposed
of
No comments:
Post a Comment