MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for the suspension of their sentences pending appeal. The petitioners, convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought relief under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the suspension of sentence was warranted given the significant delay in the appellate process. The Supreme Court observed that more than two years had elapsed since the filing of the appeal, and the record remained unprinted, with further delays anticipated. Holding that the prolonged delay in the hearing of the appeal without fault of the petitioners constituted a valid ground for relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the suspension of the petitioners' sentences. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an appellate court is unable to hear an appeal within a reasonable timeframe due to administrative delays, the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is appropriate.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the non-printing of the appellate record?
- Does a significant delay in the hearing of an appeal justify the suspension of a life sentence?
- Is the suspension of a sentence permissible when the appellate court is unlikely to fix the appeal for hearing in the near future?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Zaman, petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-4-1984, dismissing their application under section 426, Cr. P. C. For suspension of their sentence.
2. We issued notice to the State and have heard the learned counsel for both sides.
3. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioners have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C, and both of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life. They filed an appeal before the High Court which is pending decision. Alongwith the appeal they also applied under section 426, Cr. P.C. For suspension of their sentences which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. We were informed that a period of more than 2 years has passed but the appeal has not yet been fixed for hearing. We, therefore, issued notice to the State.
5. It was admitted by the State counsel that a period of 2 years has passed since the appeal was filed in the High Court and even the record of this case has not yet been printed. It was also admitted that printing of the record may take about one more year. As such we feel that there is no likelihood of the appeal being fixed for final hearing for quite sometime. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for suspension of the sentence of the petitioners under section 426, Cr. P.
C.
' Having heard the counsel for both sides, we convert the petition into appeal ; allow the same ; suspend the sentences of the petitioners and admit them to bail in the sum of Rs, 40,000 each, with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate Kharian, District Gujrat.
Cited by 1 case
- RASHID AHMAD Versus THE STATE 1996 PLD 468