MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 14 others vs THE STATE
The applicants, convicted under sections 148 and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, challenged an order of the Sessions Judge, Dadu, dismissing their application for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The core legal question was whether the sentence should be suspended when the appeal is fixed for early hearing despite the likelihood of delay in preparing the paper book. The Sindh High Court held that since the sentence is short and the preparation of the paper book will take time, the application for suspension of sentence ought to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that where a convict is undergoing a short sentence and the appeal cannot be heard immediately due to procedural delays such as the preparation of the paper book, the sentence of imprisonment should ordinarily be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment can be suspended when an appeal is pending before the lower appellate court?
- Does the likelihood of delay in the preparation of the paper book justify the suspension of a short sentence?
- Are principles laid down in precedents regarding the suspension of short sentences applicable when the State does not oppose the application?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicants have been convicted on 24-12-2003 for Offences punishable under sections 148 and 337-A(i), P.P.C. And awarded sentences of imprisonment of six months and one year respectively, besides fine and Daman. They preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, which was admitted and an application was moved for suspension of sentence, which was dismissed on 10-1-2004 on the ground that the appeal is already fixed for final arguments. The said order has been impugned herein.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned counsel for the State.
3. ' The order of the learned Sessions Court shows that the appeal has been fixed for final hearing, but it is not clear if the paper book has been prepared so early, for the purpose of a regular hearing of the appeal. The impugned judgment shows that ten witnesses were examined in the trial Court, therefore, the learned counsel is justified in submitting that the preparation of paper book may take some time. Learned counsel relies on the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2003, Criminal Acctt: Appeal No.33 of 2002, Muhammad Khan Shahid v. State PLD 1997 SC 1, Abdul v.
4. State 2001 Cr.LJ 502, Kamran Ali v. State 2000 YLR 3008 and Saeeda Bilques v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 548.
5. ' Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned State counsel in view of the law laid down in these authorities, does not oppose the application.
6. The principles laid down in the cases cited at the bar are attracted in the circumstances of this case. The preparation of paper book may take some time. The sentence is short and not more than one year. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Appellate Court viz. Court of Session, Dadu.