2000 P Cr (PLP)

The appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced under section 406/471, P.P.C. to R.I. for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000 in default whereof suffer R.I. for two months more, has prayed for suspension of sentence and her release on bail. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the applicant is a lady and an Advocate by profession. The sentence is very short. The appellant was on bail during her trial. There is every likelihood of her success in the appeal and the disposal of the appeal cannot be visualised at an early date. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State, opposes suspension of sentence on the ground that section 426, Cr.P.C. has been excluded by section 10 of the Ordinance IX of 1984. Both the learned counsel have relied upon an unreported order of this Court in Muhammad Akram v. The State Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1998, decided on 26-6-1998, wherein it has been held as under:-- "From the afore-referred judgment, it is evident that powers under section 426, Cr.P.C. are not available to this Court while hearing an appeal against the conviction awarded by the Special Court constituted under the offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 but in special circumstances such as, inordinate delay, in disposal of Appeal and serious ailment of the appellant during the pendency of his Appeal, the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be invoked. To release a convict during the pendency of his appeal before this Court, as is apparent from the above, this Court is not completely devoid of powers to grant such relief. Testing the case of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal, on the parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of State v. Qaim Ali Shah (supra), we are of the considered view that the appellant has failed to make out a case for suspension of his sentence and for his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal as the conviction and sentence having been recorded per impugned judgment, dated 9-6-1998, there is neither any inordinate delay in disposal of the case nor there is anything on record to suggest the appellant is an infirm or sick person. " We subscribe to the above view taken by this Court in the above referred order that under special circumstances the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court. It may be pointed out that the above view has been taken by a learned Division Bench of this Court on the basis of a leading judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in the case of The State v. Qaim Ali Shah reported in 1992 SCMR 2192. We would like to add that the scope of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C is wide enough and unless the exercise of such power is expressly excluded by statue the same can be invoked in suitable cases. We are fortified in our view by the cases of Haji Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Muhammad Aslam and another reported in 1990 SCMR 211, Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State and another reported in 1997 SCMR 304 and Hussain Ahmed v. Mst Irshad Bibi and others reported in 1997 SCMR 1503. In the given circumstances of the instant case, the appellant-convict is a lady besides being a Member of the Bar. The sentence awarded is only one year. We are convinced that this is a fit case where powers E under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the appellant. For the above reasons, we allow the application and suspend the sentence of the appellant and order her release on bail subject to her furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand) C and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. N.H.Q./S-251/K Sentence suspended.