Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 741 2020 SLD 741 2020 PLD 337
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1095 of 2017, decision Dated: 09-05-2019
MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, JUSTICE MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE
Ch. Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Petitioner.

SARDAR KHAN

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 397

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S. 397---Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence---Concurrent sentences---Scope was awarded sentences of imprisonment for life and imprisonment for four years in two different trials/appeals however, no order for concurrent running of sentences was made was convicted and sentenced simultaneously and even his appeals were decided at the same time, however, while converting his death sentence into imprisonment for life appropriate orders for concurrent running of sentences escaped notice of the court---High Court directed that sentence of imprisonment for life and sentence of imprisonment for four years shall run concurrently---Constitutional petition was allowed. Juma Khan and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 1573; Javaid Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 153 and Mst.Zubaida v. Falak Sher and others 2007 SCMR 548 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- ----S. 397---Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence---Concurrent sentences---Scope---Section 397, Cr.P.C. contemplates that sentences awarded to a person in a subsequent trial would commence at the expiration of imprisonment for which he had been previously sentenced, however, discretion has been left with the court to direct concurrent running of sentence awarded in a subsequent trial---Command of law for consecutive sentences is general rule while discretion for concurrent sentences is discretionary power of the court. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 397---Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence---Concurrent sentences---Time for making such order---Scope---Appropriate order within the meaning of S.397, Cr.P.C. ought to be made at the time of deciding the case or appeal but if, for any reason or due to some inadvertent omission, direction could not be issued at that time there is no embargo that the same cannot be passed afterwards---Court can exercise discretionary power at any time to direct that sentences in two different trials would run concurrently. Sajjad Ikram and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others 2016 SCMR 467 and Mst. Shahista Bibi and another v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492