GHAFOOR AHMAD vs DUR MUHAMMAD and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order suspending the sentence of a respondent convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and granting him bail due to statutory delay in the disposal of his criminal appeal. The petitioner challenged this suspension, arguing that a pending revision application seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence should have precluded the grant of bail. The respondent contended that the revision petition had not been admitted for three years and thus did not bar relief under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the validity of the High Court's order regarding the impact of the pending revision petition on the suspension of sentence. Instead, with the consent of both parties, the Court directed the High Court to dispose of both the pending criminal appeal and the criminal revision application within three months following the summer vacation. The petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the necessity of expeditious disposal of criminal matters.
- Can a pending revision application for enhancement of sentence preclude the suspension of a sentence under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the statutory delay in the disposal of a criminal appeal provide sufficient grounds for the suspension of a sentence under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court of Sindh dated 19-1-1998 whereby the sentence awarded to the respondent No,1 under section 302, P.P.C., was suspended during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No,17 of 1995 and the respondent was enlarged on bail on the ground of statutory delay in disposal of the appeal.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent had submitted a revision application against the judgment of the Trial Court awarding life imprisonment to the respondent under section 302 for enhancement of sentence and the said revision application was pending for disposal before the High Court at the time the respondent's sentence was suspended and he was admitted to bail.
3. The learned counsel for the caveator, on the other hand, contended that although the revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Trial Court awarding life imprisonment to the respondent seeking enhancement in the punishment but the said revision has not yet been admitted in spite of passage of about 3 years and, therefore, the pendency of the revision petition could not come in the way of suspension of the sentence of the respondent under section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C. On the ground of statutory delay.
4. We do not propose to go into the question of the validity of the order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber on the ground of pendency of the revision petition, as both the learned counsel agree that they will be satisfied if the learned. High Court is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal within three months from the date of re-opening of the Court after Summer Vacation. The course suggested by the learned counsel for the parties appears to be appropriate and accordingly without going into the merits of the impugned decision, we direct that the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of the Trial Court (Criminal Appeal No,17 of 1995) alongwith the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner be disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh within three months from the date of re-opening of the Court after Summer Vacation.
5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with the observations mentioned above.