IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Review Petition Nos.1 to 6/2016 in 
Jail Petition Nos.588 to 593/2013 
(On review from the judgment dated 22.10.2015 passed by this 
Court in Jail Petition Nos.588 to 593/2013) 
 
Zaid Shah alias Jogi 
(in all cases) 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State 
(in all cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC 
(in all cases) 
 
For the State: 
Mirza M. Usman, DPG 
(in all cases) 
 
Date of hearing: 
29.1.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Ziad Shah alias 
Jogi, petitioner herein, was tried alongside co-accused in six 
different cases of abduction for ransom; the cases were registered 
at different police stations during the year 2007 and each resulted 
into conviction; he was initially sentenced to death in each case, 
however, on appeal the death penalty was converted into 
imprisonment for life with collateral benefits including concurrent 
commutation of coordinate charges in each case, upheld 
throughout. After failure of his jail petitions before this Court, the 
petitioner addressed his first review petition through jail i.e. Suo 
Moto Criminal Review Petition No.90 of 2016 in J.P. Nos.588 to 
593 of 2013; barred by time, it was dismissed even on merits on 
12.5.2016; he once again attempted through a counsel for the 
review of earlier judgments through Review Petition Nos.1 to 6 of 
2016 and it was for the first time, as late as on 16.1.2019 that 
concurrent commutation of sentences in all the cases was prayed 
Criminal Review Petition Nos.1 to 6/2016 in 
Jail Petition Nos.588 to 593/2013 
 
2
through a second review at the bar in the absence of any such 
plea, specifically taken in the memorandums of the review 
petitions. Bound by a common thread, the titled review petitions 
are being decided through this single judgment.   
2. 
 
Heard. 
3. 
 
It is by now well settled that a petitioner cannot 
maintain a second review petition as authoritatively held by this 
Court in the cases of  Khalid Iqbal & 2 others Vs. Mirza Khan & 
others (PLD 2015 S.C. 50) as well as Moin ud Din & others Vs. The 
State & others (PLD 2019 S.C. 749). Even otherwise, learned 
counsel for the petitioner appointed at State expense, despite his 
strenuous effort, has not been able to point out any error apparent 
in the judgment rendered by this Court in different jail petitions 
preferred by the convict. We have thoughtfully attended the 
prayer/argument, raised for the first time, seeking concurrent 
commutation of petitioner’s sentences, canvassed primarily on the 
ground that he would never be able to serve out the consecutive 
sentences in his expected life span, however, found the plea far 
from being persuasive for more than one reason. First that it was 
never pleaded before the Court either in jail petitions or in the 
memo of first review petition and, thus, in the face of formidable 
bar, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the randomly taken 
up plea at the end of the day. Having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the cases wherein the petitioner was returned 
guilty verdicts, we have otherwise found it far from expedient to 
entertain the plea on the touchstone of expectancy of life. 
Discretion available with the Court under Sections 35 and 397 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has to be exercised with 
judicial circumspection and caution to strike a balance in order to 
avoid miscarriage of justice; every request for concurrent 
commutation is not to be granted in isolation to the facts and 
circumstances whereunder the crime is committed. In the present 
case, in a short span of time, the petitioner committed abduction 
for ransom in no less than six cases; when arrested, he was found 
guilty in each. Appellate scrutiny both by the High Court as well as 
this Court confirmed his guilt; heinously shocking, the enormity of 
his conduct cannot be lost sight of merely on the ground that he 
would not be able to foot the bill during his life time. Sufferings 
endured by the victims and their families cannot be consolidated 
Criminal Review Petition Nos.1 to 6/2016 in 
Jail Petition Nos.588 to 593/2013 
 
3
into a concessionary package for the petitioner without being 
callously indifferent to the victims; it would also seriously 
undermine the criminal justice system, already functioning under 
raised eyebrows. Review petitions fail. Dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
29th January, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/- 
