Citation Name: 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RAZA SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON,

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

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RAZA SHAH VS SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PESHAWAR Ss. 406, 420 & 489-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439---Criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonestly issuing a cheque---Petitioner had challenged the order of the first appellate court vide which his appeal for conversion of consecutive sentences into concurrent, was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, for all the offences in four FIRs, separate challan were submitted before the court---Though three out of four cases were pending in one and the same court however, the trials were undeniably separate---Accused had pleaded his guilt, in all the four cases, before the Trial Court after framing of charge---Earlier when charge was framed he denied the allegations against and claimed trial however, in three out of four cases when he admitted the commission of offence he was not served with a notice as required under S.243 of Cr.P.C. which was mandatory---Record showed that on the basis of admission, the Trial Court without serving him with show cause notice convicted and sentenced him in all the three cases on the same date and in each case, he was awarded three years simple imprisonment with fine, which was done when the accused/petitioner was produced in custody, solely on the basis of application, when he placed himself at the mercy of Court---Undisputedly, the petitioner had not challenged his conviction before the competent forum---Further, a sentence of three years' imprisonment had to commensurate within the offences---Petitioner had been convicted for the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., for the period of three years in each, however, in case the sentences were not to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of 12 years if he paid the fine in each case otherwise petitioner would remain there for further period of four months (SI), such as, further incarceration of the petitioner beyond three years with one month (SI) for failure of payment of fine---Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the powers of High Court it was the judicial obligation of the Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process---Accordingly, it could safely be held that discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different consideration, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex---In penal or procedural provisions relating to criminal jurisprudence, liability or punishment would be capable of narrower construction, but the construction which would tilt the interpretation favourable to the accused would be preferred over the interpretation which would adversely affect the right of a person/accused under trial---Petition was disposed of in the term that all sentences awarded to the petitioner would be deemed to run concurrently. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RAZA SHAH VS SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PESHAWAR Sentence---Scope and purpose---Aim of imprisoning a person is not merely to dump him in a jail---Aim is equally to reform him during the period of incarceration so that he may be brought back into the society as a peace-loving and law abiding citizen---Logic of imprisonment is not only to incarcerate the accused person within four walls of the jail, the purpose is to reform the convict.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RAZA SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PESHAWAR Ss — 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR