Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3026 2007 SLD 3026 2007 PLJ 60
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. S-173 of 2006, decided on 28.8.2006.
FAISAL ARAB, J.
Habibur Rehman Shaikh, A.A.G. for State.

NEK MUHAMMAD and anothers

VS

STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 397--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Concurrent running of sentences awarded by different Courts--Relief of seeking concurrent running of subsequent sentences ought to be sought either before the Court which passed subsequent sentences or if denied by such Court, ought to be sought before higher forum where appeal or revision lay--Having not sought the remedy before higher forum and the sentences awarded in three cases having attained finality, petitioners in collateral proceedings could not agitate the matter, because finality was attached to all legal decisions, if not reversed or modified by higher forum provided under law, in such a situation a party in a case could not seek any relief through collateral proceedings, which was either denied to him or the party itself failed to seek such relief by impugning the order of the Court before higher legal forum in the same hierarchy--Where no appeal or revision was preferred, relief for seeking concurrent running of the subsequent sentences, could not be sought in any collateral proceedings as no other proceedings could be the substitute for an appeal or revision--All offences in the present case, though identical in nature, were committed with distinct and separate criminal objectives sought to be achieved at different points of time--Justification to seek concurrent running of all the three sentences, in circumstances, did not arise at all--Courts below did not have the discretion to order concurrent running of subsequent sentences--Constitutional petition was dismissed. [Pp. 64 & 65] A & B PLD 1950 Lah. 497; PLD 1977 Kar. 833; PLD 1986 Lah. 294; 1990 PCr.LJ 568 and PLJ 1978 Lah. 531 ref. Judgment Through this petition, the petitioners seek concurrent running of their sentences awarded to them in three different cases by three different Courts. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that three separate F.I.Rs. at different point in time were lodged wherein it was stated that the present petitioners misappropriated stocks of grain issued to them from Government godown worth millions of rupees for delivery at three…
🔒
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