MUJEEB-UR-REHMAN vs State S — 2022 YLRN 126 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

MUJEEB-UR-REHMAN VS State S. 381-a---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 35 & 397---Theft of vehicle---appreciation of evidence---Conviction for several offences at one trial---Concurrent commutation of sentence---accused was charged for stealing the cars of different complainants---Said cases were tried and accused was convicted and sentenced in both the cases---accused contended that the sentences awarded to him might be ordered to run concurrently as required under Ss. 35 & 397, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Section 35, Cr.P.C., described that when a person was convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Trial Court was obliged to sentence him for approved offences, according to the separate punishments prescribed---Such punish-ments when consisting of imprisonment would commence one after the expiry of the other, unless the court directed that such punishments would run concurrently, meaning thereby that the sentences of imprisonment in two or more offences tried at one trial would run consecutively---Direction that such punishment would run concurrently was an exception---Provision of S.35, Cr.P.C. was only applicable when a person was convicted at one trial of two or more offences---Court under said section could direct a concurrent running of sentences only when the accused was convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences---In the present case, both the offences were committed with distinct and separate criminal objectives sought to be achieved at different points of time, as such, justification to seek concurrent running of all the offences, in particular circumstances, did not arise at all---Section 397, Cr.P.C., prescribed for the running of different sentences inflicted on an offender, at separate trials, for different offences, without any clog of time, place and nature of the offence---Section 35, Cr.P.C., enjoined that it would come into play when a person was convicted at one trial of two or more offences---Since direction under S. 35 of the Cr.P.C. was contingent on the conviction of a person for several offences at one trial, as such, said section did not attract in the circumstances of the present case, because the accused had been convicted at different trials for the offences committed at different times and places---Trial Court had ample discretion under S.397, Cr.P.C., to direct the subsequent and previous sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently, however, the Trial Court seized of the subsequent trial and the appellate/revisional court in appeal/revision arising there-from was competent to direct that the subsequent conviction and sentence would run concurrently with previous one---appeals were dismissed, in circumstances, however, all the sentences awarded to the accused were directed to run concurrently. Head NotesCase Description

MUJEEB-UR-REHMAN vs State S — 2022 YLRN 126 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported