Sanaullah Sabzoi vs The State
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, which returned the applicant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant had been convicted under Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, by an Assistant Sessions Judge and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Judge declined to hear the appeal, reasoning that the sentence exceeded four years, thereby necessitating an appeal to the High Court. The core legal question was whether a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine constitutes a sentence exceeding four years for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the fine is an additional punishment and cannot be calculated as part of the substantial sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the appeal was competent before the Sessions Court. The principle laid down is that for determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only the substantial sentence of imprisonment is considered, excluding fines.
- Does a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine exceed a four-year sentence for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a fine be included when calculating the duration of a sentence to determine the appropriate appellate forum?
- Section 23(i)(a), Sindh Arms Act 2013
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 408(b), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Over-ruled.
2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of instant Crl.Revision Application are that the applicant for possessing an unlicensed T.T pistol with a magazine containing five live bullets of the same bore, on completion of trial was convicted under Section 23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default in payment whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, with the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 24.04.2024, which he impugned by preferring an appeal; it was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot vide order dated 23.05.2024, by observing that the sentence awarded to the applicant exceeds four years, therefore, the appeal is to be filed before the High Court; such order is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the punishment awarded to the applicant was not exceeding four years, therefore, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have disposed of the appeal of the appellant by way of impugned order, the same being illegal to be set aside by this Court. in support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Aslam Vs. The State (1994 PCr.LJ-73).
Learned D.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order.
Heard arguments and perused the record., As per Section 408 (b) Cr.PC, when the sentence passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge exceeds four years, then the appeal would lie before the High Court. In the instant case, the substantial sentence awarded to the applicant for the said offence is four years. The fine is an additional punishment which could hardly be calculated towards substantial sentence. In such a situation, the appeal preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Court was competent and is to be disposed of on merits. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
The instant Crl. Revision Application is disposed of ccordingly.