Muhammad Khan vs Inayat And 3 Other
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the enhancement of a sentence previously upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioner, who had been injured in an attack, argued that the sentence imposed on the respondents was insufficient and requested the maximum punishment provided by law. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the authority to enhance a sentence while exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Court held that a petition seeking sentence enhancement under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The Court determined that while it possesses inherent powers to modify sentences, it lacks the legal authority to enhance a sentence, as inherent powers cannot be utilized to override or defeat express statutory provisions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent legislative limitations regarding sentencing powers.
- Does the High Court have the power to enhance a sentence while exercising its inherent powers under 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?
- Is a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking sentence enhancement maintainable under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
JUDGMENT FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- This criminal miscellaneous is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2006 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), P.P.C. And sentenced the petitioner for VA 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 manner.
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, the 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 case reported as Haji' Sabir and 9 others v.. The State (2001 P.Cr.L.J. 754).
6. The Inherent powers are not supposed to be exercised to override express provisions of law under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be invoked of added where there are express provision dealing with a particular subject to can be used to defeat the express provision of legislature. Reference is made to Ashiq Hussain Thahim v. The State and 2 others (1999 M LD 535) In view of the above, this petition having no merit is dismissed.