JUNAID AHMAD vs State Ss — 2025 PLD 116 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

JUNAID AHMAD VS State Ss. 35, 397 & 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Separate trials for the same offence---Concurrent running of sentences---Scope---Section 397, Cr.P.C provides that even if an accused person was sentenced in two or more cases and tried separately, in such eventuality, such sentences could be ordered to run concurrently---applying the said yardstick to the case of petitioner, the case of the petitioner would be covered under S. 397, Cr.P.C., as he too had been convicted for the same kind of offence in different trials---In case earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the 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 have specifically and consciously ordered the sentences either in same trial or in subsequent trial to run consecutively---Thus, there remains no doubt that the High Court has 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 to run concurrently---Section 397, Cr.P.C, shows that the Court, while analyzing the facts and circumstances of every case, is competent to direct that sentences in two different trials would run concurrently---In such eventuality, the Court has wide power to direct that sentences in one trial would run concurrently---Provision of S. 397, Cr.P.C., conferred wide discretion on the Court to extend such benefit to the accused in a case of peculiar nature, like the present one---Thus, extending the beneficial provision in favour of the appellant would clearly meet the ends of justice---Constitutional petition was allowed and High Court directed that sentences of the petitioner shall run concurrently instead of consecutively.

JUNAID AHMAD vs State Ss — 2025 PLD 116 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD