2005 P Cr (PLP)

2. Sanaaf Gul has been convicted and sentenced in two cases, the full particulars of which are given below along with the details of sentences awarded:‑‑‑ In case F.I.R. No.196 of 1995 under section 9‑C of C.N.S.A., P.S. Tibbi City Lahore, the appellant was convicted under section 9‑C of C.N.S.A., 1995, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1 million, or in default of payment of fine, he had to undergo 6 years R. I. and 3 months as being 1/4 of the term of imprisonment as required by subsection (2) of section 16 of the said Ordinance. In case F.I.R. No.122 of 1995, under section 9‑C of C.N.S.A., P.S. Hanjarwal, Lahore, the appellant was convicted under section 9‑C of C.N.S.A., 1995, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 million or in case of default of payment of fine, he had to suffer 6 years' R.I. and 3 months as being 1/4 of the term of the imprisonment as required by subsection (2) of section 16 of the said Ordinance. Both the cases against him were decided on the same date i.e. on 14‑1‑1999 by the learned trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant is not assailing the order to the extent of quantum of sentence in the main offences in both these cases. She is invoking the provisions of section 397 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:‑‑ "Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence.‑‑ When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment or imprisonment for life to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 123 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. "

4. The difficulty has arisen to the appellant because the learned trial Court had not stated anything about the two sentences running consecutively or concurrently. Whereas, this Court can always take curative measures in view of the powers bestowed to it under section 57 read with sections 234 and 397 and 561‑A of the Cr.P.C. in such an eventuality.

5. It is argued that had the Legislature intended imprisonment of life to be more than 25 years, it would not have fixed 25 years to be the period of imprisonment for life.

6. Imprisonment for life necessarily envisages an imprisonment of 25 years in accordance with the spirit of section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The sentence of life imprisonment is only the next sentence after the sentence of death and the concept of life is only one span, therefore, the imprisonment of life can only be for one life.

7. In this connection, reference may be placed on the following cases: (1) Shah Muhammad alias Manna v. The State 1994 SCMR 582, (2) Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State 1986 SCMR 1627, (3) Falak Sher v. I.‑G. and others 2002 MLD 1435, (4) Altaf Hussain v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ.2169, (5) Zakir Ali v. The State PLD 1977 Kar. 833, (6) Nagappa Vyankappa Sali v. Emperor AIR 1931 Bom. 529(1), (7); Jumma Khan v. The State 1986 SCMR 1573, (8) Khan Zaman v. The State 1987 SCMR 1382 and (9) Hayee Khan v. The State PLD 1992 SC 14, as well as on the unreported case (Criminal Appeal No.289 of 1997), decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the other side, this Court feels that it would serve the interest of justice if the sentences in both, the cases are ordered to run concurrently and consequently both the appeals are decided accordingly. H.B.T./S‑270/L Order accordingly.