Muhammad Ismail vs State and another
This criminal miscellaneous application arises from a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, wherein the petitioner, Muhammad Ismail, was sentenced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence pending the outcome of his appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court's judgment was based on a misreading and non-reading of the evidence and emphasizing that the awarded sentence was relatively short. The core legal question before the Court was whether the sentence should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal given the likelihood that the petitioner might serve the entire sentence before the appeal could be heard. The Court, observing that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, held that the sentence should be suspended to prevent the petitioner from potentially serving the full term before his conviction could be reviewed. The key principle laid down is that where an appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the suspension of a short sentence is warranted to avoid the risk of the sentence being fully served before the appeal is decided.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal if the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
- Is the short duration of a sentence a valid ground for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Does the possibility of serving the entire sentence before an appeal is heard justify the grant of bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Crl. Misc. No. 1 of 2019 Petitioner Muhammad Ismail was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Layyah, in case FIR No. 74/2019 dated 29-01-2019 registered at Police Station City Layyah. By impugned judgment dated 23.5.2019 he has been convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to, grigorous imprisonment for four years and six mouths with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default there of to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of five months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. has, however , been extended to the Petitioner .
2. The Petitioner has filed the above-noted appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court which is still pending. Through this application the Petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence on the ground that, firstly , the impugned judgment dated 23-05-2019 is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and is not sustainable.
Secondly , the sentence awarded to him is short.
3. The instant application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Law Of ficer.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. This appeal has been admitted to regular hearing by this Court to reappraise the evidence and determine whether the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Petitioner in this case. The question as to whether the learned trial Court has misread the evidence would be determined when the main appeal comes up for hearing. It is, however , observed that the sentence awarded to the Petitioner is short, i.e. four years and six months. This appeal pertains to the year 2019 and is not likely to be taken in the near future. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the Petitioner may serve out his entire sentence by the time its turn for hearing comes.
6. In view of above, this application is allowed and the sentence of Petitioner is hereby suspended. He is released on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. The Petitioner shall attend the Court on each and every date of hearing till the disposal of the main case.