| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2629 2013 SLD 2629 2013 YLR 1340 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 11287 of 2012, decided on 20th November, 2012
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JJ
Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed and Malik Imtiaz Haider Marth for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Ahmad Mumtaz, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State. Mirza Muhammad Saleem Baig, Additional Advocate-General with Shaukat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Jails)
Writ Petition No. 11287 of 2012, decided on 20th November, 2012
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JJ
Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed and Malik Imtiaz Haider Marth for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Ahmad Mumtaz, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State. Mirza Muhammad Saleem Baig, Additional Advocate-General with Shaukat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Jails)
KHALID SALEEM alias KHALDI
VS
The STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss.35 & 397---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Concurrent or consecutive sentences---Maximum length of sentence---Different criminal cases---Scope---Grievance of accused was that convictions and sentences awarded to him in different criminal cases were being treated as consecutive and not concurrent---Validity---Order regarding running of sentences of accused either consecutive or concurrently should be passed at the time of deciding case or deciding appeal and if for any reason or due to some inadvertent mistake the same was not passed, the matter could be settled by invoking jurisdiction of High Court---Categorical mandatory proviso to S. 35(2), Cr.P.C. provided that in no way sentences should not exceed for a longer period of fourteen years---Sentences of accused running consecutively would not serve interest of justice, rather the same would be contrary to the law---High Court directed that sentences passed against accused in different cases to run concurrently and also to consider period of detention undergone by accused in connection with other criminal case---Petition was allowed accordingly. ORDER Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for considering his convictions and sentences awarded to him in different criminal cases to run concurrently instead of consecutively. He has also prayed to include the period of his detention in F.I.R. No. 36 of 1992 in his convictions and sentences. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contend law bestows to an accused a privilege to consider, his entire convictions and sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently and the sentence in every cost should not be surpassed to life imprisonment due to the proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Even section 397, Cr.P.C. also safeguard the basic and legal rights of an accused and any violation of the provisions of supra section would infringe the rights of accused which would cause great miscarriage of justice. It is not understandable that in case of any unspecified order the jail authority always consider the sentence of an accused to be consecutive. The…
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