TOTO vs The STATE
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence pending the disposal of a criminal appeal. The appellant, convicted under Section 23 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (ambiguously recorded as two or four years) and had already served approximately one year in custody. The core legal question was whether the sentence should be suspended given the duration of the sentence, the time already served, and the likelihood that the appeal would not be decided promptly. The Court held that since the sentence was relatively short and the appellant had already served a significant portion of it, coupled with the fact that the appeal was admitted and its disposal on merits would take time, the sentence should be suspended. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence is of short duration and the appeal is unlikely to be heard immediately, the court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending appeal.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the appeal is pending and the disposal of the case is likely to take time?
- Is the fact that an appellant has already served a significant portion of a short sentence a valid ground for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 23, Sindh Arms Act 2013
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.---The listed Application under section 426, Cr.P.C, is filed in this Criminal Appeal against Impugned Judgment dated 24.02.2016, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under section 23 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo R.I for two (4), years with fine of Rs,10,000/-. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Was extended to Appellant.
2. ' Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is in custody since 23.6.2015, and as per Impugned Judgment he has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For two (4) years, which if be considered as two years or four years is lesser sentence and the Appellant has undergone confinement for about one year and has relied on the cases reported 2007 PCr.LJ 1035 (DB Karachi) and 1999 SCM R 2589. Further the Appellant has submitted that Appellant has got good case on merits; the decision of the Appeal would take time and as such this Application be allowed.
3. ' Learned DDPP, has opposed the suspension of sentence.
4. As per Impugned Judgment, it has been mentioned that the Appellant has to undergo R.I. For two
(4) years, so if it is 2 or 4 years, then in either case the sentence is lesser and Appellant is in jail since about one year for which the reference is mentioned on the cases reported in 1999 SCM R 2589 and 2007 PCr.LJ 1035. Further the Appeal of the Appellant has already been admitted; the paper book is under preparation; the disposal of this Appeal on merits may take time and even otherwise apparently the Appellant has got case on merits.
5. In the above circumstances, the sentence awarded to the Appellant is hereby suspended and he be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000/- (two lacs) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
6. ' In view of above, the listed application stands disposed of.