MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Muhammad Shakeel, seeking the concurrent running of sentences awarded in two separate trials arising from the same incident. The core legal question was whether sentences of imprisonment awarded in different trials for offences arising out of the same occurrence can be ordered to run concurrently pursuant to section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the application, holding that where different offences are made out on account of one occurrence and tried by different courts, it is just and proper to order the sentences to run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts may apply section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct concurrent execution of sentences arising from a single transaction or incident even if tried separately.
- Whether sentences awarded in different trials arising out of the same occurrence can be ordered to run concurrently?
- Can the High Court direct separate sentences to run concurrently under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Do the provisions of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when different offences are tried by different courts on account of one incident?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13(e), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SALMAN ANSARI, J.-This application is moved by the applicant Muhammad Shakeel who was on 10-10-2006 convicted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South- West, Judicial Court complex, Karachi in Sessions Case No,678 of 2005 in Crime No, 170/2005 for an offence punish-able under section 392/34, P.P.C, lodged at P.S. Defence Karachi, to undergo R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs,25,000, in default of payment of fine further S.L for 6 months.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that applicant had disclosed to police regarding weapon used in crime, hence a pistol along with magazine containing 4 live bullets was recovered and F.I.R. No, 178/2005 was registered under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance at P.S. Defence Karachi.
The applicant was convicted in this case to undergo R.I. For 3 years and to pay fine of Rs,1000.
Subsequently, in appeal on S.C. No,698/2005 this Court vide order dated 13-11-2007 reduced the sentenced to 4 years and fine to Rs,5000. This application under section 561-A Cr.P.C, has been moved praying therein that sentence under section 392/34 P.P.C, and under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance awarded by the both Courts below to run concurrently. Learned counsel for applicant in support of his contention has relied upon the case of Muhammad Asif v. State (PLD 2003 Lah. 512) in which it was held that where on account of one occurrence, different offences were made out calling for different sentences and trials and the superior Courts felt that the provisions of section 397 of the Cr.P.C, were applicable and ordered the running of the sentences concurrently rather than consecutively.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has contended that though provision of section 397 Cr.P.C, provides for sentences to run consecutively unless ordered otherwise but in view of findings of the Superior Courts as referred above, he however concedes that the sentences in the present case should run concurrently.
4. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the case law cited at bar.
5. In my humbly opinion the case cited above fully applies to the present case that where two cases are made out of the same incident although tried by different Courts, it would be just and proper that sentences awarded by the two Courts below should run concurrently. Consequently, Cr.
Miscellaneous Application No,222 of 2008 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.