The Supreme Court has observed that the Federal Government should formulate a scheme to assist the poor convicts who have no money to make the payment of Diyyat.
The apex court was hearing an appeal of one Riaz of Takhat Bhai, district Mardan, NWFP, who was convicted of Qattal-e-Amd on November 30,1996, and, on account of being of tender age, was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment and payment of Diyyat of Rs 5,46,000 on two counts.
In his appeal the petitioner took the plea that he completed his substantive sentence two years ago but was still in due to non payment of Diyyat as he is poor and does not possess any property.
In the preliminary hearing of appeal on November 10, 2006, the court had observed that "it is not only one case in which the convict is facing imprisonment on account of non-payment of Diyyat, as such this question requires a serious consideration to resolve the dilemma".
The court issued notice to the Attorney General for Monday, December 4, 2006, to appear in person and assist the Court after taking instructions from the Government for formulating a scheme and adopting measures for alleviating miseries of such convicts.
Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan informed the Apex Court on Monday that Ministries of Interior and Law and Justice had prepared a summary in this connection for approval of the Cabinet but so far no decision has been taken.
He also read out a judgement of the Lahore High Court, which had struck down some sections of the Diyyat law on account of being confusing and unpractical.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who headed the three-member bench observed that in view of the existing law if the convict is not financially sound to make the payment of Diyyat, he has to stay in civil prison for an indefinite period unless he is released either on bail with direction to make the payment of Diyyat in instalments or with the concurrence of heirs of the deceased and even then there is no certainty that once out of custody he would not be in a position to discharge such heavy civil liability because simultaneously he has also to look after himself as well as his family members. He said that this appeal along with other such matters would be heard by a larger bench to be constituted next week starting from December 11, 2006.
Comments
Comments are closed.