IJAZ alias JUJJI vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

IJAZ alias JUJJI VS State Ss. 35, 397 & 561-a---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 199---Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence---Scope---Petitioner was undergoing two sentences of life imprisonment along with other sentences awarded in two cases, however, sentences had not been treated as concurrent sentences---Record showed that no order regarding the sentences awarded in two different case shall run concurrently had been passed---Section 35, Cr.P.C subject to S. 71 of P.P.C. empowered not only the Trial Court to hand down several punishment/sentences to a person charged for multiple offence in same trial and in its discretion direct that sucha conviction/sentence might run concurrently---Section 397, Cr.P.C. revealed that procedure to be observed for the sentences awarded to an accused in cases regarding sentences to run consecutively or concurrently should be passed at the time of deciding the case---If for any reason or there to some inadvertent mistake the same was not passed, the matter could be settled by invoking the jurisdiction of High Court---Section 397, Cr.P.C., further provided that when a person was sentenced at a time when he was already undergoing imprisonment, then his subsequent sentence was to commence upon the expiration of the earlier sentence unless the Court had specifically given directions that subsequent sentence was to run concurrently with the previous sentence---Said section dealt with various sentences passed in a single trial of two or more offences---Sentences were to run consecutively unless the Court directed otherwise---Section 397, Cr.P.C., perfectly covered the present case---Section 35, Cr.P.C subject to S. 71 of P.P.C. empowered not only the trial Court to hand down several punishment/sentences to a person charged for multiple offence in same trial and in its discretion direct that such conviction/sentence might run concurrently even the appellate Court while hearing the appeal against the conviction might direct several sentences/punishment handed down in same trial to run concurrently---Section 397, Cr.P.C. enabled and empowered the trial and or appellate revisional court, as the case may be, in a subsequent trial or in appeal or revision arising out of subsequent trial to order for the consolidation of sentence in subsequent trial with the sentence(s) handed down in earlier trial(s) as may be maintained or modified in appeal/revision arising therefrom---If earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court at the time of handing down the subsequent conviction/sentence the trial or appellate/Revisional Court could exercise such jurisdiction even after the sentence of imprisonment in subsequent trial was announced in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-a, Cr.P.C. read with S. 397, Cr.P.C., provided, of course, where the trial or superior courts of appeal had specifically and consciously ordered the sentences either in same trial or in subsequent trial to run consecutively---Court, in circumstances, had jurisdiction under S. 561-a read with S. 35 and or S. 397, Cr.P.C., as the case may to order such multiple sentences in same transaction/trial or in a separate and subsequent trial and so also that considering the sentences of the petitioner to consecutive would not serve the interest of justice rather the same would be contrary to the law---Petition was allowed and the sentences passed against the petitioner in two FIRs was ordered to run concurrently.

IJAZ alias JUJJI vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ