In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial  
 
C.P.L.A. No.689-L of 2015 
(On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, Lahore 
dated 4.3.2015 passed in W. P. No.9233 of 2014) 
Kareem Nawaz Khan  
Petitioner 
Versus 
The State through PGP & another  
Respondents 
For the petitioner: 
 
Mr. Abid Saqi, ASC 
 
Respondents:  
 
N.R.  
 
Date of hearing: 
 
1.6.2015 
 
Order 
  
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J – By this civil petition, 
leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner against the order 
dated 4.3.2015, in writ petition No.9233 of 2014, passed by 
learned Division bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby 
his petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the following relief, was 
dismissed:- 
“For the foregoing reasons it is most respectfully prayed that by 
accepting the instant writ petition order dated 19.2.2014 
passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, 
Sargodha may kindly be modified, application moved by the 
petitioner regarding the compromise having been arrived at 
between the petitioner and legal heirs of the deceased may 
kindly be accepted in respect of offence under section 7 read 
with section 21(l) of Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and the 
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
2
petitioner may very graciously be acquitted of the charges 
against him forthwith. 
Any other relief, which this Honourable court deems fit 
and proper may also be granted.”. 
2. 
The brief facts of the case are that petitioner 
was the nominated accused in F.I.R. No.101 dated 
30.6.2007, Police Station Moch, District Mianwali, for 
commission of offence under section 302 PPC, read with 
section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (“the Act of 1997”), 
for committing qatl-i-amd of Mst. Qudsia Yasmeen, Karam 
Dad and Mst. Tasleem Akhtar. After the completion of 
investigation, he was sent up for trial before the Anti 
Terrorism Court, Sargodha, where, after conclusion of trial, 
vide judgment dated 2.2.2009, he was convicted and 
sentenced as under:- 
“(i) 
Under section 302(b) PPC, for qatl-i-Amd of Qudsia 
Yasmeen, Karam Dad and Tasleem Akhtar sentenced to 
death 
on 
three 
counts 
with 
direction 
to 
pay 
Rs.1,00,000/- on each account as compensation to legal 
heirs of deceased as required under section 544-A 
Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment thereof, to 
undergo S.I. for six months. He is also burdened to pay 
diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased.  
(ii) 
Under section 7(a) of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, he 
was sentenced to death with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in 
case of default in payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 
three years.  
(iii) 
Under section 21(L) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, he 
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years alongwith 
with fine of Rs.20,000/-.”.  
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
3
3. 
The above referred judgment of the Anti-
Terrorism Court, Sargodha was challenged by the petitioner 
before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through criminal 
appeal No.187 of 2009, which was dismissed, vide 
judgment dated 16.11.2010, thus, all the sentences 
awarded to him were accordingly confirmed. These two 
judgments were then challenged by the petitioner before 
the Apex Court through criminal petition No.1245-L of 
2010, which was dismissed and leave was refused, vide 
order dated 5.6.2012. In this manner, conviction of the 
petitioner, and the sentences awarded to him by the Anti-
Terrorism Court attained finality.  
4. 
On 
20.9.2013, 
the 
petitioner 
filed 
an 
application under section 338-E PPC before the trial Court 
for effecting compromise with the legal heirs of the three 
deceased/victims of the occurrence, whereupon further 
proceedings, as required by law, were held and on that 
basis such application was allowed by the trial Court, vide 
its order dated 19.2.2014 to the extent of compoundable 
offences under section 302 PPC, while the conviction and 
sentence awarded to the petitioner under sections 7(a) and 
21-L of the Act of 1997, being non-compoundable, were 
maintained. Against this order of the trial Court, on 
3.4.2014 the petitioner  preferred  writ  petition No.9233   
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
4
of 2014 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was 
heard and dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.3.2015.  
5. 
We have heard Mr. Abid Saqi, learned ASC 
for the petitioner and perused the material placed on 
record. During his arguments, after summarizing the 
relevant facts, learned ASC has referred an order of this 
Court dated 23.4.2015, whereby making reference to an 
earlier order dated 22.4.2015, hearing of appeal No.1772 of 
2008 and civil petition No.1708 of 2011 were adjourned 
and execution of sentence to the appellants/petitioners was 
suspended with the observation that the issue whether 
after compromise in an offence under section 302(b) PPC 
sentence under section 7 of the Act of 1997 can be 
maintained independently, was sub-judice before a larger 
Bench. Suffice it to say that leave granting order has no 
binding effect as against the settled legal proposition in this 
regard as discussed, inter alia, in the above cited cases. 
6. 
The only short point for consideration before 
us is whether compounding of an offence under section 
302(b) PPC with the legal heirs of the deceased will ipso-
facto dilute the effect of conviction of an accused under 
section 7 of the Act of 1997 or once such conviction has 
been maintained upto the level of Supreme Court, 
subsequent compromise with the legal heirs of the 
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
5
deceased will have no bearing on it, being a past and closed 
transaction.  
7. 
Admittedly, the conviction and sentences 
awarded to the petitioner by the Anti-Terrorism Court, 
Sargodha had attained finality upto the level of Apex Court. 
The petitioner had, thereafter, moved an application under 
section 338-E PPC for effecting compromise with the legal 
heirs of the three victims of the occurrence, which was 
accepted to that extent by the trial Court in terms of the 
order dated 19.2.2014. However, his conviction and 
sentence under sections 7(a) and 21-L of the Act of 1997, 
being non-compoundable, were maintained. Before the 
High Court the legality and propriety of such order of the 
trial Court was re-examined in detail and the petition was 
accordingly dismissed with the observation that the offence 
under section 7(a) and 21-L of the Act of 1997, were 
independent and non-compoundable, therefore, the order 
of the trial Court was in accordance with law and needed 
no interference from the High Court.  
8. 
In so far as the facts of the case are 
concerned, the same are not disputed. In this background 
as to the independent nature of conviction under the 
provisions of the Act of 1997, being non-compoundable, 
further guidance can be sought from the judgments of this 
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
6
Court in the case of Muhammad Amin versus the State 
(2002 SCMR 1017), Muhammad Rawab versus the State  
(2004 SCMR 1170), Shahzad versus Judge, Anti-Terrorism 
Court (2005 SCMR 1162) and Muhammad Akhtar versus 
the State (PLD 2007 S.C. 447), which clearly provide that 
the offence under section 7(a) of the Act of 1997 is an 
independent one, which is non-compoundable, thus the  
sentence awarded under this provision of law is also 
independent to other sentences under section 302(b) PPC 
etc., which may be compoundable in nature. Therefore, in 
view of the bar contained in sub-section (7) of section 345 
Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Act of 1997 will 
remain intact despite compromise in other sentences in 
compoundable offence.  
9. 
This being the position, we have no doubt in 
our mind to hold that the impugned order as well as the 
order of the trial Court, passed on the application of the 
petitioner under section 338-E PPC are in conformity with 
the relevant provisions of law, thus call for no interference. 
10. 
As a result of above discussion, leave is 
refused and this petition is dismissed. 
 
 
 
Islamabad, 
1st June, 2015 
Not approved for reporting.  
Riaz 
Judge 
 
 
 
                   Judge                      
C.P. No.689-L of 2015 
7