IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.826 OF 2016     
(On appeal from the judgment dated 01.02.2016 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad 
in ICA No.249 of 2015 
 
Asjad Javed @ Javed Akhtar 
 
 
…Petitioner  
 
VERSUS 
 
 
 
Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary Interior, 
Islamabad and others. 
 
…Respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner 
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr.ASC. 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, DAG. 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR  
(R.1-2) 
Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl. AG Pb. 
(R-4) 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing 
18.04.2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O R D E R 
 
 
 
 
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.- This petition for 
leave to appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 01.02.2016 of the Islamabad 
High Court, Islamabad whereby the Intra Court Appeal of the respondent was 
allowed by the learned Division Bench in the following manner: 
“In view of the above, we hold that the petition filed by the 
Respondent No.1 was not maintainable under Article 199 
of the Constitution. We, therefore, allow the instant appeal 
and set-aside the impugned order. In order  to claim any 
entitlement under Section 12 or any grievance relating to 
section 9(4) of the Ordinance, the Respondent No.1 shall be 
at liberty to approach the Competent Authority as defined 
C.P.826/2016 
2 
in clause (C) of section 2 of the Ordinance. We expect that 
if the respondent No.1 makes a representation to the 
Competent Authority the later shall consider the same, and 
thereafter proceed in accordance with the law.”  
 
 
 
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner 
being a convict of the Crown Court in United Kingdom was entitled to be 
released as he has served out much of his corporal sentence of imprisonment by 
extending the remissions under section 12 of the Transfer of Offenders 
Ordinance, 2002 (XXXVII of 2002). He further argued that the High Court has 
fallen into an error of law by allowing the Intra Court Appeal of respondent in 
this behalf.  
 
3. 
 
Learned Deputy Attorney General while supporting the judgment 
of the learned Division Bench of the High Court submitted that writ petition of 
the petitioner to seek remissions in his sentence of imprisonment was not 
maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the 
High Court. He further argued that the petitioner is also entitled for the 
remissions under the relevant law in this behalf but for that purpose he was 
supposed to approach the concerned authority as was asked by the High Court.  
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the parties were heard and the record of the 
case was perused. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner was arrested 
in United Kingdom on 23.12.2003 under the offence of conspiracy to supply 
drugs (196 kilogram of the powder containing Cocaine). He was tried and 
convicted by the Crown Court of United Kingdom (U.K.) and thereby was 
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of twenty five years on 23.7.2004. After 
serving about 6 years and 28 days sentence in U.K. petitioner was transferred to 
Pakistan pursuant to an agreement entered into between Government of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan and Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain for 
C.P.826/2016 
3 
transfer of prisoners in view of the transfer of Offenders Ordinance 2002 
(XXXVI of 2002) and was admitted in Central Prison Karachi on 21.8.2010. 
Thereafter, he managed to get himself released with the collusion of Mr. Ali 
Muhammad Malik, Section Officer (Law), Government of Pakistan, Ministry of 
Interior, Islamabad, but was arrested again on the intervention of Government of 
United Kingdom of Great Britain. The petitioner-convict through Constitutional 
Petition had questioned his arrest and also sought his release from the prison 
which was partially allowed but the Division Bench of the High Court by 
allowing the I.C.A. set aside the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition. 
Hence instant petition.  
 
5. 
 
Before we proceed further it would be worthwhile to reproduce the 
relevant provisions of Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 (XXXVII of 2002). 
2. 
Definitions.—In this Ordinance, unless there is anything 
repugnant in the subject or context.- 
(a)……………………………….. 
(b)………………………………. 
(c)  
“Competent Authority” means the Secretary, Ministry of 
 
Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division) or any 
 
other person as the Competent Authority may be notified in 
 
official Gazette, authorize to exercise powers and perform 
 
functions, of the Competent Authority under this Ordinance; 
(d) 
……………………………. 
.. 
.. 
 
 
 
AND  
“9. 
Inspector-General of Prisons to have the custody 
of an offender transferred to Pakistan.- (1)Every 
offender being transferred to Pakistan from any specified 
country, upon an order under Section 4 shall be formally 
handed over to the Inspector
C.P.826/2016 
4 
nominated by the Competent Authority and the 
concerned Inspector-General of Prisons shall have the 
authority to keep such offender in custody in any place as 
may appear to him to be appropriate for giving effect to 
the sentence of imprisonment imposed on such offender 
in such specified country for the period of the sentence as 
if it were a sentence imposed by a Court in Pakistan. 
 
(2) 
The enforcement of the sentence of imprisonment 
imposed on any offender who is transferred to Pakistan 
under sub-section (1) shall be governed by the laws of 
Pakistan. 
 
(3) 
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) the Competent Authority shall, unless 
otherwise specified in the agreement, be bound by the 
legal nature and duration 
of the sentence of 
imprisonment imposed on any offender transferred to 
Pakistan under sub-section (1). 
 
(4) 
Where the legal nature and duration of the 
sentence of imprisonment imposed on any offender 
transferred under sub-section (1), is incompatible with 
any law of Pakistan, it shall be lawful for a Court of 
competent jurisdiction in Pakistan to adopt such 
sentence to make it compatible with laws of Pakistan 
provided however that the sentence as adopted by such 
Court in Pakistan corresponds, as far as practicable, to 
the sentence imposed on such offender in the specified 
country 
from 
which 
such 
offender                                       
was transferred to Pakistan. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AND 
12. Remission and President’s powers to grant 
pardon.—(1) An offender who is transferred to Pakistan 
in terms of section 9 shall be subject to any remission of 
the sentence of imprisonment, imposed on him in the 
C.P.826/2016 
5 
specified country where he was convicted, to which he 
may have become entitled to on the date of his transfer in 
accordance with the laws relating to remission of a 
sentence in force in such specified country. 
 
 
2. 
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be so construed 
as to limit or take away the power of the President to 
grant pardon or remission of sentence to any offender 
under Article 45 of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan or by any other authority under any 
law of Pakistan for the time being in force.” 
 
 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
 
6. 
 
Perusal of the above provisions of law regulating the Transfer of 
Offenders  would reveal that the convict by competent Court of Law of specified 
country can be transferred to Pakistan pursuant to mutual agreement between the 
two countries and if the convict is transferred to Pakistan then he would be 
governed by the laws of Pakistan as if it was a sentence imposed by a Court in 
Pakistan and in case the sentence awarded to the convict is not compatible with 
the laws of Pakistan, a Court of competent jurisdiction in  Pakistan can adopt 
such a sentence to make it compatible with the law of Pakistan. As far as 
pardon/remissions in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to an Offender is 
concerned, it can also be granted/extended to him under the Laws of Pakistan and 
he can also claim any remission of his sentence of imprisonment to which he 
became entitled to on the date of his transfer in accordance with law relating to 
the remissions of sentence in such specified country. When we asked the learned 
Senior ASC, is there anything in black and white to reflect that the offender had 
earned any remission during his imprisonment in U.K, he could not lay hand on 
any such order of the concerned authorities in U.K. We also asked the learned 
Senior ASC as to whether the offender was ever refused any remission, he had 
C.P.826/2016 
6 
earned, while serving his sentence of imprisonment in Pakistan but again he was 
unable to refer to any such refusal. Yes; the petitioner has to be dealt with under 
the law of the land to serve out his remaining sentence as provided in section 
9(2) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 (XXXVII of 2002) which also 
makes him entitled for grant of pardon or remission of sentence by the President 
of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 
or by any other authority under any law of Pakistan for the time being in force as 
provided in Section 12(2) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002               
( XXXVII of 2002) but for that purpose he has to approach the concerned 
authority as defined in the Law to ask for the relief. 
 
7. 
 
For what have been discussed above we are of the considered view 
that the learned Division Bench of the High Court while handing down the 
impugned judgment has not committed any illegality or irregularity. Resultantly, 
this petition having no merits is hereby dismissed and the leave asked for is 
refused. 
 
8. 
 
The above are the reasons for our short order of even date which 
reads as under:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition being 
without merit is dismissed.” 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
Bench:-III 
Islamabad 
April 18, 2017 
 
Approved for reporting 
(Saeed Aslam)