‘Not entertainable’: SC rejects Saulat Mirza’s review plea
Says the question is not just of ‘maintainability’ of the petition but also its ‘entertainability’.
YOUTUBE SCREENGRAB
ISLAMABAD:
Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk has dismissed the second review petition of death row prisoner Saulat Mirza, pointing out that the question was not simply of the ‘maintainability’ of his petition but also its ‘entertainability’.
Saulat Mirza – convicted for the murder of Karachi Electric Supply Company’s former managing director Shahid Hamid along with his driver and guard – was sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court in Karachi on May 14, 1999. His conviction and sentence was eventually maintained by the top court on September 14, 2001, and his appeal was dismissed.
Mirza later filed a review petition which met the same fate on March 9, 2004. Almost 11 years later on January 1, 2015, Mirza filed another application for revisiting the judgment handed down on the review petition.
However, the SC’s institution branch returned the application on the grounds that it amounted to a second review and, therefore, not permissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Supreme Court rules 1980. Meanwhile, Mirza filed an appeal against the office’s objection on his second review plea.
On March 17, advocate Sardar Latif Khosa – appearing on behalf of the applicant – argued that the question of maintainability of Mirza’s petition is to be determined by the court and not by the SC office. The court, however, dismissed his plea but issued its written order to the petitioner a week ago.
In his three-page written order – available with The Express Tribune – the chief justice has cited Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, wherein it is stated that after the final disposal of the first application for review no subsequent application for review shall lie with the court and, consequently, shall not be entertained by the registry.
“The above-mentioned Supreme Court’s rule empowers the office not to entertain any petition that is barred under the rules,” the order said, adding that the office objection is sustained and appeal stands dismissed.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2015.
Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk has dismissed the second review petition of death row prisoner Saulat Mirza, pointing out that the question was not simply of the ‘maintainability’ of his petition but also its ‘entertainability’.
Saulat Mirza – convicted for the murder of Karachi Electric Supply Company’s former managing director Shahid Hamid along with his driver and guard – was sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court in Karachi on May 14, 1999. His conviction and sentence was eventually maintained by the top court on September 14, 2001, and his appeal was dismissed.
Mirza later filed a review petition which met the same fate on March 9, 2004. Almost 11 years later on January 1, 2015, Mirza filed another application for revisiting the judgment handed down on the review petition.
However, the SC’s institution branch returned the application on the grounds that it amounted to a second review and, therefore, not permissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Supreme Court rules 1980. Meanwhile, Mirza filed an appeal against the office’s objection on his second review plea.
On March 17, advocate Sardar Latif Khosa – appearing on behalf of the applicant – argued that the question of maintainability of Mirza’s petition is to be determined by the court and not by the SC office. The court, however, dismissed his plea but issued its written order to the petitioner a week ago.
In his three-page written order – available with The Express Tribune – the chief justice has cited Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, wherein it is stated that after the final disposal of the first application for review no subsequent application for review shall lie with the court and, consequently, shall not be entertained by the registry.
“The above-mentioned Supreme Court’s rule empowers the office not to entertain any petition that is barred under the rules,” the order said, adding that the office objection is sustained and appeal stands dismissed.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2015.