1988 PLP 1973 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 16th May, 1987 whereby bail was allowed to respondents Nos.1 to 5 and their sentences were suspended under sections 426, Cr.P.C. It was at the behest of the appellant Mst. Khalida Mumtaz that a case was registered against the aforesaid respondents under section 307/147/149/157/380, P.P.C. They were accordingly tried by the Magistrate Section 30 (Judicial) Lahore Cantt., Lahore who convicted and sentenced each of them as under: Each of the respondents was convicted under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. plus fine. Again each of them was convicted under section 307/149, P.P.C. and except Hamid Ali Khan respondent who was sentenced to four years' R.I. plus fine the other respondents were sentenced to two years' R.I. plus fine each. Under section 380, P.P.C. each of them was sentenced to three years' R.I. plus fine. Under section 457, P.P.C. each of them was sentenced to two years' R.I. plus fine. The sentences in each case were ordered to run consecutively. Hence Hamid Ali Khan respondent was totally sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years plus fine whereas each of the other respondents was to undergo eight years' R.I. plus fine. The appeal of the respondents is pending in the High Court. However, they moved an application for suspension of sentence and bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. and vide the impugned order learned Single Judge suspended their sentences and released them on bail. Leave to appeal was granted in this case in order to examine the validity of the impugned order because first it appeared that the learned Judge had misread the sentences awarded to each of the respondents under different sections as well as direction to the effect that these were to run consecutively; and second that the grounds on which the sentences had been suspended and bail allowed in fact amounted to deeper appreciation of evidence which could have only been gone into at the hearing of the main appeal and not at the suspension of sentence stage. A perusal of para 1 of the impugned order indicates that Hamid Ali Khan respondent was sentenced to one years' R.I. plus under section 148, P.P.C. and four years' R.I. fine under section 307, P.P.C: Since the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, according to the impugned order, the total period of his sentences of imprisonment would come to five years, whereas in fact the was sentenced to a total period of ten year's R.I. plus fine. In respect of each of the other respondents it is stated in the impugned order of the learned Judge that each of them was sentenced to one years' R.I. plus fine under section 148, P.P.C., two years' R.I. plus fine under section 457, P.P.C. and three years' R.I. plus fine under section 380, P.P.C. Thus, in each of their case according to the impugned order the total sentence of imprisonment is six years' R.I. whereas in fact each of them had been sentenced to eight years' R.I. plus fine. In para. 2 of the impugned order the grounds raised by learned counsel for the respondents for suspension of their sentences were to the effect that the stolen property recovered from Hamid Ali Khan respondent was neither produced nor exhibited, that no one was injured due to the alleged firing of Hamid Ali Khan respondent, and furthermore that the incidents of murderous assault and theft were not committed in the course of the same transaction. The other ground advanced was that the question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try an offence under section 380, P.P.C. after the promulgation of Hudood Laws was also to be considered. All these points amounted to deeper appreciation bf evidence which could not be gone into at that stage. Nevertheless the learned Judge without advancing any reason in the impugned order suspended the sentences of the respondents and released them on bail observing as follows: "Without going into the merits of the case I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioners/ appellants and order accordingly." Since there has been misreading on the part of the learned Judge of the record so far as the sentences awarded to the respondents were concerned as well as the fact that the arguments raised by learned counsel on their behalf amounted to deeper appreciation of evidence be done by the learned Single Judge at that stage which could no furthermore by not giving any cogent reason for the suspension and we set aside the impugned their sentences or admission to bail, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court, accept the appeal and cancel the bail allowed order It is further observed in favour of each of respondents Nos.l to 5. that in the circumstances of the case their appeal before the High t court be decided as expeditiously as possible after the respondents have surrendered themselves to the police. M.B.A./K‑76/S Appeal accepted .