ABDUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD AMIN alias MANNA and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had altered a death sentence to life imprisonment for the respondent. The petitioner sought to challenge this alteration; however, it was brought to the Court's attention that the respondent had already served the entirety of the sentence imposed by the High Court and had been released from custody. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether an accused person, having fully served a substantial or legal sentence for an offense, could be subjected to a further sentence for the same offense. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that once an accused has served the sentence awarded, they cannot be vexed with another sentence for the same offense. The Court reasoned that imposing a new sentence under these circumstances would be unfair, unjust, and a violation of the protection against double jeopardy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the principle of double jeopardy bars re-sentencing after a sentence has been fully served.
- Can an accused person be awarded a new sentence for the same offense after having already served the substantial sentence previously imposed?
- Does the imposition of a second sentence for the same offense after the first has been served violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 13, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2nd March, 1999 passed by Lahore High. Court, Lahore whereby death sentence awarded to respondent No,1 by the trial Court vide judgment dated 1st July, 1992 under sections 302/452, P.P.C. Has been altered to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. V We are informed by the learned counsel for petitioner that convict/respondent No,1, after serving the entire period of his sentence, awarded to him by the learned High Court vide judgment dated 2nd March, 1999 has been released from custody.
3. We have pointed out to learned counsel that in view of judgments reported in Mst. Razia Begum v. Jehangir and others PLD 1982 SC 302, Mst. Promilla and others v. Safeer Alain and others 2000 SCM R 1166 and Amir Khan and others v. The State and others 2002 SCM R 403 whether an accused, who had served out the substantial/legal sentence, can be awarded another sentence for the same offence and it would not be in violation of the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
' The learned counsel stated that the respondent No,1 was not awarded legal sentence by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction because alternate remedy was available to him.
But in our opinion this objection of the learned counsel is only of academic nature at this stage for the reasons noted above because this Court in above noted judgments has held that if an accused has served B out the substantial/legal sentence for an offence, he cannot be awarded another sentence for the same offence. Additionally it may be added that it would be unfair, unjust and would also be in violation of Article 13 the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with section 403, c Cr.P.C., if now accused/convicts are vexed with another sentence for the same offence.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition stands dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 5 cases
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and others 2021 PLD Lahore 200
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State Etc 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 104
- SHAHZAD Versus Rana QAMAR 2019 YLR 2508
- Fazal Hussain & another vs Muhammad Taj & 2 others 2017 SCR 1050
- ABDUL MALIK and others vs THE STATE and others 2006 PLD Supreme Court 365