TALIB vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Ss

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

TALIB VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Ss. 35 & 382-B---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 57 & 302(b)---Concurrent/consecutive running of sentences---Pre-sentence imprisonment---Scope---Petitioner/convict was awarded life imprisonment on two counts but sentences were not ordered to run concurrently---Validity---Grant of benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C, is mandatory and in normal circumstances cannot be refused to accused for the period he remained or was detained in custody as an under-trial prisoner at the time of awarding him sentence of imprisonment by Trial Court---High Court directed that sentences of life imprisonment on two counts would run concurrently and jail authorities were to look into the matter to pass appropriate order for release of petitioner/convict from jail, if not required in any other case---High Court gave benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C to petitioner/convict---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE TALIB VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Criminal justice system---Sentencing---Scope---Sentencing is one of the most important facets of administration of criminal justice system---Apart from statutory restrictions, appropriate sentence is a matter for discretion of sentencing judge---Decisions of Courts on points of substantive law are binding on Court itself and the Courts subordinate thereto---Decisions on sentencing are no more than examples of how Court has dealt with a particular offender in relation to a particular offence---Criminal jurisprudence has developed to some extent except the principles of uniformity of sentence for a particular category of crime but they are not authoritative in a strict sense---Limitation or curtailment of sentencing may be regulated by legislative provisions and other modes of fettering discretion in awarding of punishment may also result from the principles stated by judicial pronouncement---In English and American Laws, component of justice model is the constriction of judicial discretion by promulgation of standards with which judge must substantially comply---Main three strategies are: (a) enactment directly by legislature of a detailed set of principles of sentencing, indicating a normal or presumptive sentence for given classes of case, with specified aggravations and mitigations, leaving sentencing judge very limited discretion; (b) promulgation of standards, by a Commission composed of judges and other interested persons, which would be more detailed than a direct legislative enactment, less exposed to change but at the same time more flexible and capable of amendment in the light of experience; and (c) evolution of guidelines based on an empirical study of current sentencing practice within the jurisdiction concerned---In most of the systems, discretion is vested with Courts in matters of sentencing and passing other related orders---Continuous efforts are made to avoid disparity of sentencing as individualization of sentencing undermines uniformity of sentencing practice and creates disharmony detrimental to public confidence---Under the penal system, discretion is exercised by the Courts awarding sentence.

TALIB vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ