IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1125 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 26.01.2018 passed by the Lahore 
 High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in W.P. No.2271/2012) 
 
Ex- PA 43620 Lt. Asim Bashir 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan & 3 others  
 
     …Respondent(s) 
                
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. S.A. Mahmood Khan Saddozai, 
ASC 
 
Ms. 
Rubina 
Mahmood 
Khan 
Saddozai, ASC 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali,  
AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, 
 
Addl. Attorney General for Pakistan 
 
Major Haider and Major Azmat, JAG 
Branch. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
06.05.2021  
 
ORDER 
 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Gasping for life 
with a fire shot in the head, Naveeda Gohar, 24/25, was escorted 
by Asim Bashir, her second cousin, a lieutenant in the Pakistan 
Army, petitioner herein, to Combined Military Hospital on 
4.2.2010; incident was reported to the police by her husband 
Major Syed Afaq Ahmed (PW-8) wherein he alongside the petitioner 
named his mother as suspects; the injured breathed her last on 
23.2.2010. D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic) profile generated through 
deceased’s vaginal swabs were found compatible with petitioner’s 
specimens to conclusively confirm the carnal liaison.   
Refusal of proposal by the petitioner, prior to deceased’s 
marriage with the complainant, was cited as motive for the crime; 
he was taken into custody by the Army authorities same day. 
Presented before a Field General Court Martial convened at 
Bahawalpur Cantonment, the petitioner was indicted for homicide 
and fornication, initially let off on the former charge, however, 
2 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 1125 of 2018 
 
returned a guilty verdict on the latter with a sentence of rigorous  
imprisonment for 3-years 6-months as well as payment of 
Rs.10,000/- as fine, accompanied by concomitant dismissal from 
the service vide decision dated 14.06.2011, a finding reverted for 
reconsideration by the Convening Authority/General Officer 
Commanding vide order dated 13.08.2011, in consequence 
whereof, after revisiting the evidence, comprising ocular account, 
admission and forensic report, he was convicted for homicide as 
well and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide decision dated 
01.09.2011, affirmed by the General Officer Commanding as well 
as the Chief of Army Staff; his appeal, filed under section 133B of 
the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (the Act) was dismissed on 
10.2.2012; a Constitution petition also failed before a learned 
Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench 
on 19.10.2017, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for. 
Petitioner’s mother was prosecuted for abetting the crime in 
regular jurisdiction before a learned Additional Sessions Judge 
Rawalpindi; she was acquitted without challenge vide judgment 
dated 9.5.2012.  
2. 
 
 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
petitioner, notwithstanding the accusation was not subject to the 
provisions of the Act in view of Section 59(2) thereof; that Field 
General Court Martial was not convened at the proper venue as 
contemplated by section 93 of the Act ibid as the petitioner had 
since been transferred to another station and, thus, the entire 
exercise was a nullity in the eye of law; that the offence was of a 
civil nature, a position confirmed by separate trial of petitioner’s 
mother, namely, Nigar in regular jurisdiction; that a Convening 
Officer could not have remitted the case for reconsideration of the 
evidence and, thus, the entire exercise suffered from the taints of 
mala fide and being coram non judice was liable to be set aside, 
concluded the learned counsel. The learned Additional Attorney 
General by referring to various provisions of the Army Act argued 
that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the strength of 
admissible evidence in compliance with the procedure permissible 
by law and, thus, there was no occasion calling for interference 
with a conclusion drawn by the High Court.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 1125 of 2018 
 
4. 
 
On the eventful day, the petitioner was serving as a 
lieutenant in the Pakistan Army; though the incident occurred in a 
civilian neighbourhood, he was apprehended by the Military Police 
on the fateful day and a case for murderous assault was registered 
on the basis of information laid by victim’s husband, himself a 
serving Major in the Pakistan Army; the petitioner conspicuously 
figured as the prime suspect therein. Given his status as an Army 
Officer, his apprehension, custody and prosecution before a Field 
General Court Martial are the steps taken within the remit of 
Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (the Code) 
which unambiguously authorizes such a prosecution on the option 
of Commanding Officer, a choice that is in line with the concurrent 
jurisdiction of Court Martial and Criminal Courts on the discretion 
of “Prescribed Officer” as contemplated by sections 94 and 95 of the 
Act ibid, laying down the procedure in such an eventuality, 
therefore, the argument that the petitioner was not liable to be 
treated as subject to the Act in view of the nature and venue of the 
crime is entirely beside the mark. We are also not impressed by the 
contention that the petitioner ought not to have been tried in 
Bahawalpur Cantonment and that proceedings of Field General 
Court Martial stood vitiated on this score alone. On the contrary, 
in view of the options available to the Army authorities under 
section 93 of the Act ibid to convene Field General Court Martial 
“in any place”, we are not inclined to take exception to the 
convenience of choice exercised by the authorities. The learned 
counsel has not been able to point out any prejudice suffered by 
the petitioner by his trial at Bahawalpur where, according to the 
record, he was afforded sufficient and fullest opportunity to meet 
the witnesses half way without let or hindrance.  
 
Statutory scheme, regulating proceedings of Court Martial 
does not attach finality with any finding or sentence recorded 
thereunder unless confirmed within the contemplation of section 
119 of the Act ibid by the competent authority; a combined reading 
of various provisions relating thereto under Chapter X of the Act 
ibid validly space the possibility of revision of a finding by the 
officer higher in hierarchy. In the present case, General Officer 
Commanding while taking stock of the evidence directed 
reassessment thereof by the president and members of Field 
4 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 1125 of 2018 
 
General Court Martial, an exercise envisaged by the Act, 
undertaken in continuation of an ongoing process. The final 
sentence/finding is cumulative impact leading to the logical end of 
the proceedings within the integrity of the procedure regulating 
trial under the Act.  Acquittal of petitioner’s mother tried for 
abetment of the crime by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in 
regular 
jurisdiction 
does 
not 
adversely 
affect 
petitioner’s 
prosecution, assigned a vastly distinguishable role of fatal shot to 
the deceased as unanimously alleged by the witnesses in the 
suggested backdrop, forensically confirmed.  
5. 
 
The parameters authoritatively settled by this Court to 
examine the vires of a finding/sentence recorded by a Court 
Martial provide a limited space to examine hypothesis of any mala 
fide lurking behind the prosecution or any juridical flaw in holding 
of the Court Martial that may be viewed as coram non judice or 
without jurisdiction and in so doing a High Court shall not attempt 
to search for a contra view of evidence, competently recorded 
during a Court Martial. See Ex-Capt. Muhammad Akram Khan Vs. 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary to the 
Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, 
Islamabad and another  (PLD 1969 SC 174), The State Vs. Zia-ur-
Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49), Brig. (Rtd.) F.B. Ali and 
another Vs. The State (PLD 1975 S.C. 506), Sh. Karamat Ali Vs. The 
State (PLD 1976 SC 476), Federation of Pakistan Vs. Malik Ghulam 
Mustafa Khar (PLD 1989 S.C. 26), Secretary Ministry of Religious 
Affairs and Minorities and others Vs. Syed Abdul Majid (1993 SCMR 
1171), Mrs. Naheeed Maqsood Vs. Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Govt. of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 
others (1999 SCMR 2078), Ex-Lt. Col. Anwar Aziz Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others  
(PLD 2001 SC 549), Mst. Tahira Almas and another Vs. Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, 
Islamabad and another (PLD 2002 SC 830), Mushtaq Ahmed and 
others Vs. Secretary Ministry of Defence through Chief of Air and 
Army Staff and others (PLD 2007 S.C. 405), Federation of Pakistan 
and others Vs. Raja Muhammad Ishaque Qamar and another (PLD 
2007 S.C. 498), Ghulam Abbas Niazi Vs. Federation of Pakistan and 
others (PLD 2009 S.C. 866), Federation of Pakistan through 
5 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 1125 of 2018 
 
Secretary Defence and others Vs. Abdul Basit (2012 SCMR 1229), 
Rana Muhammad Naveed and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan 
through Secretary M/o Defence ( 2013 SCMR 596), Ghulam Abbas 
Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence 
and others (2014 SCMR 849), District Bar Association Rawalpindi 
and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2015 S.C 
401), Ex-Lance Naik Mukarram Hussain and others Vs. Federal 
Government , M/o Defence through Chief of the Army Staff and 
others (2017 SCMR 580), Ex-Gunner Muhammad Mushtaq and 
another Vs. Secretary Ministry of Defence through Chief of Army 
Staff and others ( 2015 SCMR 1071) and Said Zaman Khan and 
others Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2017 SCMR 1249).  
 
Official acts, protected by statutory presumption, of being 
intra vires cannot be readily branded as being actuated by 
considerations, tainted with mala fide, as exercise of jurisdiction by 
the functionaries of the Republic, vested in them by law, to 
accomplish a statutory purpose; these deserve full faith and credit. 
Contra allegations must qualify falsification test on the strength of 
material capable of objective verification; a bald accusation merits 
no consideration. The officers who carried out the exercise do not 
appear to have an axe to grind and conclusions drawn by them are 
irresistibly based upon the preponderance of evidence; they by 
virtue of their ranks validly constituted the Field General Court 
Martial as well as positions superior thereto and, thus, allegation 
of coram non judice is nothing than a far cry in circumstances. 
View taken by the learned Judge-in-Chamber being in accord with 
the law declared by this Court in the supra cases, calls for no 
interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
6th May, 2021 
Not approved for Reporting 
Azmat/* 
