MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's application for suspension of sentence and bail following his conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the bail application solely on the ground that it required a reappraisal of evidence, which the High Court deemed inadmissible at that stage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was legally flawed, as the Court is obligated to consider and dispose of bail applications on their merits even when they do not fall under the statutory criteria of Section 426(1-A)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. While the Supreme Court declined to bypass the High Court by deciding the bail application itself, it established the principle that a court must exercise its discretion to decide such applications on merits rather than summarily dismissing them based on the necessity of evidence reappraisal.
- Is a High Court required to decide an application for suspension of sentence on merits even if it does not fall under the criteria of Section 426(1-A)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court dismiss an application for suspension of sentence solely on the ground that it requires a reappraisal of evidence?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammd Akram, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 11-7-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby his application for the suspension of the sentence passed against him by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corrpution, Rawalpindi, vide judgment dated 3-2-1993 in Case No, 31/92 in Cr. Appeal No, 30/93 against his conviction under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C.
2. Read with section 5 (2)/47 PCA and sentence of four years, R.I. Plus fine of Rs,20,000 or in default two years' R.I., was dismissed in limine.
3. ' We have heard Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate for the petitioner; Syed Ayub Bukhari, Advocate for the complainant; and have perused the record of the case.
4. Since the petitioner was sentenced to four years' R.I, his prayer for bail was not covered under section 426(1-A)(b), Cr.P.C. And the learned Single Judge of the High Court who had to record reasons in writing, was not inclined to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment declined the prayer simply on the ground that it requires reappraisal of evidence which, according to him, was not advisable nor admissible at that stage.
5. We are afraid; these reasons are not warranted by section 426, Cr.P.C. If the applicant insists on securing of an order the Court has to consider the prayer and dispose of the application on merits even if it could not be covered by subsection (1-A) of section, 426 Cr.P.C. We are not persuaded to consider the application on merits at this stage and to bypass the High Court. However, as much time has already elapsed it would not be in the interest of the petitioner to remand the matter of suspension of sentence, to the High Court for decision on merit, instead we feel that the appeal on merit should be disposed of at an early date.
6. ' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed. I e However, the High Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within one month.
Cited by 2 cases
- WASEEMUL HAQUE Versus STATE 1999 MLD 2382
- LIAQUAT ALI and another vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 448