MUHAMMAD KHAN vs INAYAT and 4 others
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, which had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 337-F(iv) and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while enhancing the Daman amount. The petitioner sought further enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents, arguing that the original punishment was insufficient given the nature of the attack. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possesses the authority to enhance a sentence awarded to an accused. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that while the High Court possesses inherent powers to modify sentences, it lacks the legal authority to enhance a sentence. The Court affirmed that inherent powers cannot be utilized to override express statutory provisions or to defeat the legislative intent, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
- Does the High Court have the power to enhance a sentence under its inherent powers provided by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to override express provisions of law?
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This criminal miscellaneous is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed-by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby he accepted the revision petition of respondent/complainant and enhanced the amount of Daman of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and maintained conviction under Section 337-F(iv) and F(vi) PPC and sentenced the petitioner for 1 years R.I. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also granted to them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the respondents is not sufficient, therefore, in the interest of justice maximum punishment as provided under the law may be awarded to the respondents as the petitioner was attacked by them when he was alone and was injured in a merciless manlier.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner filed the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of the sentence, which was dismissed. This is second criminal miscellaneous filed under Section 561 Cr.P.C. which is not maintainable. High Court no doubt, has got inherent power to modify the sentence awarded to accused in exercise of its powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. but it has no power to enhance the sentence. This Court cannot enhance the sentence in view of law laid down in cases reported as Haji Sabir and 9 others vs. The State (2001 P.Cr.L.J. 754).
6. The inherent powers are not supposed to be exercised to override express provisions of law.
Section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to and added where there are express provision dealing with a particular subject or can be used to defeat the express provision of legislature. Reference is made to Ashiq Hussain Thahim vs. The State and 2 others (1999 M LD 535).
In view of the above, this petition having no merit is dismissed.