MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under section 561-A read with sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner sought concurrent running of sentences previously imposed upon him under sections 109/302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioner's multiple sentences of imprisonment ought to run concurrently or consecutively when earlier judgments were silent on the matter. The court held that, in light of settled judicial precedents and the provisions of law, the petitioner is entitled to have his sentences run concurrently along with the benefit already granted under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where substantive sentences are awarded in multiple cases or counts and the judgment is silent, the established judicial consensus allows for the concurrent execution of sentences to benefit the accused, subject to statutory provisions.
- Can sentences imposed under different provisions be ordered to run concurrently under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether jail authorities are bound to run sentences concurrently if the trial and appellate courts remained silent on the matter?
- Does the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when sentences are ordered to run concurrently?
- Section 35, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
By filing instant petition under section 561-A read with sections 35 and 397, Cr.P.C., petitioner being condemned has prayed that sentences imposed upon him vide judgment dated 9-7-2001 under sections 109/302, P.P.C. And section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 may be ordered to run concurrently/simultaneously and the jail authorities may also be directed to reckon the quantum of sentences in all the offence at once/concurrently instead of consecutively.
2. Learned counsel upon this has relied upon case titled AURANGZEB AND 2 OTHERS v. THE STATE (PLD 2011 Lahore 25), case titled Mst. ZUBAIDA v. FALAK SHER and others (2007 SCMR 548), case titled SHAH HUSSAIN v. THE STATE (PLD 2009 SC 560 (FB).
3. Learned DPG has not been ale to rebut the arguments but has candidly conceded the instant point of law relying upon the Full Court judgment titled Shah Hussain v. The State.
4. Hearkened and record perused.
5. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide order dated 9-7-2001, his appeal was dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 15-5-2002 and then he could not succeed in obtaining any relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, ultimately, he withdrew his appeal from there on 31-10-2002. Petitioner was granted the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. But nowhere in the judgments handed down by the learned trial Court, by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, it was directed that the certitude of the sentences shall run concurrently/simultaneously. The codified law is very much clear upon it and the case law referred to supra and relied upon has explicitly provided the benefit to the accused that his sentences should run concurrently. In these circumstances, by accepting the instant petition, jail authorities are directed to count the -quantum of sentence in each offence concurrently/simultaneously with the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which has already been granted to the petitioner.