Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,394

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 397,561

Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 13(b)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 394/34---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(b)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.397 & 561-A---Robbery/dacoity and possessing arms---Sentence of offender who was already sentenced for another offence---Application that two sentences be ordered to run concurrently---Applicant/accused who along with others committed robbery/dacoity, case was registered against him under Ss.394/34, P.P.C. and Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to four years' R.I.---Another F.I.R. under S.13(b) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was registered against the accused in the same Police Station and Judicial Magistrate had convicted and sentenced him to two years' R.I.---Accused filed application before Trial Court praying that two convictions passed in two separate cases of the same crime be ordered to run concurrently as such request for inadvertent reasons was not made at the relevant time---Additional Advocate-General gave his no objection to the grant of application of accused, however, Trial Court came to the conclusion that order within the meaning of S.397, Cr.P.C. was required to be passed at the time of deciding the case; and for any reason or due to some inadvertent omission if such order was not passed, then same could not be passed at that stage as it would amount to modification of which was not permissible under S.369, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court further observed that such order as to concurrent running of sentence could only be passed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Held, that there was an inadvertent omission in the order of trial Court to grant the relief of concurrent sentence to the applicant, as the applicant under trial before the Court was in respect of the same crime but of different offences---Applicant, in circumstances, was entitled to the benefit of S.397, Cr.P.C.---Application filed by accused was allowed and it was ordered by High Court that two sentences awarded to accused would run concurrently. Shah Hussan v. The State PLD 2009 SC 460 and Nek Muhammad and another v. The State PLD 2007 Kar. 62 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---…

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