Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Appeal Abatement on Death of Appellant Under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a criminal appeal abates upon the death of the appellant, unless the legal heirs opt to pursue it. In the present case, General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, who was convicted by the Special Court on December 17, 2019, had filed an appeal but passed away on February 5, 2023. Despite multiple notices and newspaper publications, none of his legal heirs came forward to contest the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as abated, affirming that the conviction remains intact. (b) Criminal Procedure – Conviction Stands Despite Appeal Abatement The Supreme Court ruled that although the appeal had abated, the conviction of the appellant remains valid. The Court emphasized that the Special Court’s decision against the appellant was not overturned and, therefore, subsists with all its legal consequences. The ruling establishes that a criminal conviction does not automatically lapse upon the death of the accused if the appeal is abandoned or not pursued by legal heirs. (c) Procedural Fairness – Court’s Efforts to Contact Legal Heirs The Court exercised discretion in the interest of justice by issuing notices to the legal heirs of the deceased appellant at all known addresses, both in Pakistan and abroad. Additionally, the Court published notices in leading English and Urdu newspapers (DAWN and JANG). Despite these efforts, no legal heir responded or sought to continue the appeal. The judgment underscores that due process was fully extended before dismissing the appeal. (d) Legal Implications – Rights and Benefits of Convicted Individuals’ Legal Heirs While the Supreme Court did not explicitly address the impact of the conviction on the appellant’s legal heirs, it framed the question of whether the conviction affects their rights and benefits. However, since no heirs contested the appeal, the Court refrained from making a definitive ruling on this issue, leaving it open for determination in appropriate future proceedings. Disposition: Appeal dismissed as abated. The conviction of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf remains intact, as upheld by the Special Court’s judgment dated December 17, 2019.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Taunsa Sharif, in a case related to an armed robbery and murder (FIR No. 1 dated 11.01.2015). The appellant was also ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which he would face six months of simple imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction through Criminal Appeal No. 1164/2018, while the trial court referred the case for confirmation of the death sentence through Murder Reference No. 6/2019. During the proceedings, the court was informed that Khuda Bakhsh had passed away on the night between 4th and 5th November 2022 in the hospital while under custody. Consequently, the appeal was discussed in light of the appellant's death. -----Issues: 1- Does the appeal abate due to the death of the appellant? ----2- Can the appeal be continued by the legal heirs of the deceased? ----3- What is the legal status of the conviction and the pending appeal following the death of the appellant? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Abatement of Appeal Due to Death: The court held that under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the appeal abates upon the death of the appellant, except for the portion related to a fine. Since Khuda Bakhsh was sentenced to death and compensation, and not a fine, the appeal stands abated. The court rejected the argument from the appellant’s counsel, who suggested continuing the appeal based on Indian law (Section 394 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure), as the Pakistani law (lex fori) governs the case, and no such provision exists in Pakistani law for continuing an appeal after the death of the appellant. --Compensation Not Considered as Fine: The court clarified that the compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with a fine, citing prior judgments. Therefore, the abatement of the appeal in this case extends to both the death sentence and the compensation. --Effect of Abatement: The court explained that abatement of a criminal appeal following the death of the accused results in the nullification of all criminal proceedings, as if the accused had never been charged. The conviction is no longer valid, and the appellant is effectively exonerated from the charges. --Impact on Legal Heirs and Service Benefits: The appellant’s counsel raised concerns regarding the appellant’s service benefits, as Khuda Bakhsh had been a government servant. The court held that since the conviction is nullified due to abatement, the deceased’s legal heirs are entitled to any service benefits. The court noted that no departmental proceedings against Khuda Bakhsh were reported, and abatement of the appeal should not adversely affect the appellant’s posthumous rights, including service benefits. The appeal abated as per Section 431 of Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the murder reference, and the death sentence was not confirmed due to the appellant’s death. -----Citations/Precedents: Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui through Legal Heirs v. The State (2020 SCMR 359) Dr. Ghulam Hussain v. The State (1971 SCMR 35) Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another (2018 P Cr.L J 1513) Muhammad Shamoon (Deceased) through Legal Representative v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1144) United States v. Estate of Parsons (367 F.3d 409, 5th Cir. 2004) Harnam Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (1975 SCC 343)

Summary: Background:Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui was tried by an Accountability Court in Karachi under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5.187 million.After his demise, his appeal was disposed of by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, abating the appeal but maintaining the fine to be recovered from his estate.---Issues:Whether the appeal of the deceased convict should be allowed to proceed despite his demise.Whether the financial liability imposed by the conviction should be considered in the appeal process.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that while the corporal consequences of a conviction cease upon the death of the convict, the financial liability imposed by the conviction persists and affects the estate.Referring to Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and relevant case law, the Court concluded that the appeal filed by the deceased should be allowed to proceed, as failure to adjudicate it on its merits would result in the liability being borne by the legal heirs.The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the deceased, sustained by his legal heirs, was deemed pending before the High Court for adjudication on its merits.---Citations/Precedents:Dr. Ghulam Hussain (represented by 8 heirs) vs. The State (1971 SCMR 35)Muhammad Shamoon (deceased) through legal representatives vs. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1144)Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Summary: S.494 Cr.P.C., Ss.409/420/467/468 Penal Code , S.S(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). Appeal does not abate on the death of accused. --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 431---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/420/467/468---Prevention of Corruption Act(II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating, forgery,corruption---Death of accused, a government employee---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Ordinarily, a criminal appeal would abate on the death of appellant/accused, but S.431,Cr.P.C. had provided an exception to that general rule---Under S.431, Cr.P.C. an appealagainst sentence of fine would not abate by reason of death of accused, because it was not amatter, which would affect his person, but would affect his estate---Upon death of accused,his appeal to the extent of a portion of sentence of an imprisonment, would abate, whereas theappeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of accused, would not abate---Sentence awarded to a government officer or employee would certainly affect his service; insuch an eventuality, his conviction would also affect his pensionary benefits---On that scoreas well, appeal would not abate---In the present case, the amount of fine had been ordered tobe recovered from the properties of accused---Accused being a government employee, hisconviction and sentence, would certainly have an impact not only upon his estate, but alsoupon his pensionary benefits---Appeal to the extent, in circumstances would not abate ondeath of accused.Anwar Hussain Khan v. The State 1970 PCr.LJ 279; AIR 1957 All. 20=58 Cr.LJ 16 and AIR1962 Mys. 275 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.494---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468--Prevention of Corruption Act(II of 1947), S.S(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating, forgery,corruption---Withdrawal from prosecution---Scope---Allegations levelled against accused formisappropriation had not been supported by any witness---To the contrary, the reportsexhibited by the prosecution favoured accused, which had shown that whatever amount wasallocated to him, was properly spent---Evidence available on record, was not sufficient toconnect accused with the commission of alleged offence---Even otherwise, the Trial Courtwas also requested by the Prosecutor, through application for withdrawal of case againstaccused---Trial Court declined such request without assigning any reason--Section 494, Cr. P.C. empowered a Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case on ground of insufficient evidence---Court had a supervisory jurisdiction to see that said power could not be used by an authorityarbitrarily or contrary to the public interest-Court must satisfy itself about the request forwithdrawal by assigning its reasons for the acceptance or rejection of an appeal---For thepurpose of allowing or disallowing a request for withdrawal and assigning the reasons, thecourt must not necessarily record evidence and such discretion could also be exercised on thebasis of material available on record--Prosecution had not been able to prove its case againstaccused---Trial Court had not only failed to properly appreciate the evidence, but had alsofailed to exercise its jurisdiction for not granting permission for withdrawal of the case on theground of meagre evidence---Trial Court had not advanced any reason while rejecting theapplication for withdrawal, which would mean that court had not considered the evidence andmaterial available before it---Act of Trial Court not only amounted to misreading and nonreading of the evidence, but also amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, whichwas an illegality and irregularity---Impugned judgment was not sustainable, in circumstanceswhich was set aside.Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed and 2 others PLD 1977 SC 451 ref.