IMDAD ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Imdad Ali against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his application for the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending his appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine and compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to suspend the sentence and evaluate the evidence prior to the final hearing of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to evaluate the evidence prematurely at the bail stage suffered from no legal flaw warranting interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that an appellate court is justified in declining to evaluate evidentiary merits for the purpose of suspending a sentence before the main appeal is heard.
- Whether the High Court can be said to have failed to exercise jurisdiction when it declines to evaluate evidence at the time of deciding a suspension of sentence application?
- Does the refusal of the High Court to suspend a sentence pending appeal warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no legal flaw is shown in the exercise of discretion?
- Can a convicted person claim suspension of sentence as a matter of right prior to the decision of their appeal?
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Imdad All petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order dated 25-5- 1993 of the Lahore High Court, whereby his application for suspension of the sentence imposed upon by the learned trial Judge and his release on bail, pending decision of the appeal in the High Court was dismissed.
2. The petitioner alongwith four others was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the murder of Khalid Mukhtar. He was found guilty under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo 20 years' R.I. In addition to payment of fine of Rs,20,000 or in default whereof to undergo S.I. For one year. The amount if recovered was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of his conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Judge, in the High Court as also filed an application for suspension of his sentence and to be released on bail pending decision of the appeal.
4. The learned Judge in the Lahore High Court vide impugned order dated 25-5-1993, dismissed the application holding:-- "I am afraid I cannot suspend the sentence of the petitioner because the judgment has been delivered after a careful perusal of the evidence on the record. Contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be evaluated at this stage, and the same will be taken into account at the time of the hearing of appeal."
5. In support of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned High Court did not advert to the merits of the case and disposed of the application without exercising jurisdiction vested in it. The contention raised has no merit. The discretion exercised by the Judge in the Lahore High Court in declining to evaluate evidence before the disposal of the appeal suffers from no legal flaw so as to call for interference, by this Court. This petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- WASEEMUL HAQUE Versus STATE 1999 MLD 2382
- JAHANGIR Versus STATE 1999 YLR 2046