New developments reported over former President Pervaiz Musharraf death penalty case in LHC
LAHORE - New developments reported over former President Pervaiz Musharraf death penalty case in Lahore High Court.
The Lahore High Court has been pleaded for reviewing its decision of striking down complaint, trial and special court that tried and awarded death penalty to former military ruler retired Gen Pervez Musharraf for high treason.
“Where there is a statutory right of appeal available in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a constitutional petition does not lie in the high court,” pleads a review application filed by Lawyers Foundation for Justice through its counsel AK Dogar.
The application has been filed under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and PLD 1970 SC 1 for review of the order passed by a full bench of the LHC on Jan 13 on a writ petition by Musharraf. The full bench is yet to issue its detailed order.
The review plea states that section 12(3) of Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976 clearly provides that any party aggrieved by final judgment of the special court may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days of the passing of the judgment.
It relies on a SC judgment titled “Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj verses Election Commission-2015”, which ruled that interlocutory orders passed by the election tribunal impugned before the high court were not liable to be set aside in its constitutional jurisdiction as the petitioners before the court had a remedy available to them by the way of appeal under section 67 of the Act after disposal of the election petitions.
The foundation had also filed a civil miscellaneous application before the full bench challenging its jurisdiction to hear the petition of Musharraf. In its review, it says the full bench had observed that the application will be considered but soon thereafter it was announced that the order would be announced later in the day.
It argues that the writ petition of Musharraf was allowed by the bench without hearing the applicant as required under the law. It further argues that the decision passed by the full bench is violative of the principles of natural justice.