MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PESHAWAR and 3
The petitioner, Muhammad Ismail, filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction that two separate sentences of life imprisonment, awarded by different courts in Attock and Swabi for offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, run concurrently. The petitioner argued that had he been tried by the same court, the benefit of concurrent sentencing would likely have been granted. The Peshawar High Court examined the legal position, noting that while previous jurisprudence suggested that sentences imposed by different courts on different occasions might not automatically warrant concurrent running, the court had consistently exercised its discretion to grant such relief in the interest of justice. The Court held that since the petitioner was tried separately, the trial courts lacked the opportunity to consider concurrent sentencing at the time of judgment. Following established precedent, the Court allowed the petition, directing that the sentences awarded in the two separate cases run concurrently, thereby extending the benefit of concurrent sentencing to the petitioner to ensure equitable treatment in the administration of criminal justice.
- Can a High Court direct that sentences awarded by two different courts in separate trials run concurrently?
- Does the fact that an accused was tried by different courts on different occasions preclude the granting of concurrent sentences?
- Is the benefit of concurrent sentencing available to a convict sentenced in separate criminal proceedings?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Petitioner (Muhammad Ismail) through this constitutional petition has made a' prayer that the sentences awarded to him of life imprisonment by two different Courts, one at Attock (Punjab) and the other at Swabi (KPK) for crimes under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act may be directed to run concurrently because these were passed by two different Courts at two different times otherwise, if he was tried by the same Court then, 'the said benefit might have been extended to him.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Hi the case of "Yar Muhammad v. Superintendent, Central Prison Peshawar" (W.P.No.1763 of 2009) while relying on the earlier yiew of this Court in' the case of "Altaf Hussain v. The State", (1987 PCr.LJ 2169) where it was held that in case where an accused person is convicted and sentenced by two different Courts at two different occasions then, there is no occasion to pass an' order, directing the sentences to run concurrently, therefore, keeping in view the principle of justice, the High Court may direct that both the sentences shall run concurrently, hence, the said petition was also allowed and accused Yar Muhammad was extended the same concession.
4. In this case, the petitioner was differently tried by two different Courts and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced on different dates, therefore, there was no opportunity for one or the other Court to think over as to how the sentence already awarded shall run concurrently with the subsequent one. In case it was awarded by one and the same Court then, the benefit of prayer, made herein, would have been extended to the petitioner.
5. As this Court in so many other cases have extended the same and similar relief to such convicts, directing the sentences to run concurrently, therefore, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 14-3-2002 in case F.I.R. No.33 dated 16-2-2001 Police Station City Hassan Abdal under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act shall run concurrently with the one awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV Swabi vide judgment dated 5-1- 2005 in case F.I.R. No. 1113 dated 19-12-2000 Police Station Topi (Swabi) under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD JAVED alias JUNAID vs The STATE and 3 others 2014 P Cr. L J 956