MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs STATE etc.
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of a sentence awarded to the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad. The petitioner was convicted by a Magistrate Section 30 for offences under Section 337-F(vi) and Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences of two years and one year of rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with Daman payments, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended pending the final adjudication of his revision petition. The Court held that the sentence should be suspended, noting its relatively short duration and the unlikelihood of the main revision petition being fixed for hearing in the near future. Relying on established precedents regarding the suspension of short sentences, the Court accepted the application and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the main revision petition is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
- Is the short duration of a sentence a valid ground for the suspension of that sentence pending appeal or revision?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application, filed under Sections 426, Cr.P.C, the petitioner-Muhammad Arshad seeks suspension of sentence, awarded to him, vide judgment dated 14.04.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Malikwal, District Mandi Bahauddin, whereby petitioner was convicted u/S. 337-F(vi), P.P.C. and sentenced for two years R.I. He was held liable to pay Daman amounting to Rs, 25000/- to the injured. Petitioner was further convicted u/S. 337-A(i), P.P.C. and sentenced for one year R.I. with payment of Daman of Rs, 10,000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B, P.P.C. was also extended. The said conviction and sentence, was maintained in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal, vide judgment dated 19.05.2011.
2. Considering the aforesaid conviction and sentence being short and the fact that there is no likelihood of the fixation of the main revision petition in the near future for final decision and; finally, while respectfully following the dictum laid down in Muhammad Khan Shahid vs. The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 1) and Abdul Hameed vs. Muhammad Abdullah and others (1999 SCM R 2589), instant application is accepted; the aforementioned sentence of the petitioner is suspended and the petitioner is released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.