2006 P Cr (PLP)
FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 397---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353 & 392---Application for running sentences concurrently---Applicants/accused who were convicted and sentenced in two different offences, had prayed that sentences awarded to them be ordered to run concurrently to provide them opportunity to mend themselves---Assistant Advocate-General, was also of the view that a concession in the form of relief under S.397, Cr.P.C. could be provided to accused to mend themselves---Allowing application, sentences of imprisonment in two cases were ordered to be run concurrently.
- 3. Through the present application, they seek an order for running sentences in the two cases concurrently. Mrs. Nasreen Zafar, learned counsel representing the applicants, submitted that the sentences awarded ,in the two cases may be ordered to run concurrently, under section 397, Cr.P.C. to provide appellants, an opportunity to mend themselves. She relied upon the case of Muhammad Imran v. The State SBLR 2001 FSC 50 where in this Court ordered running of sentences in many cases against the same convict to run concurrently. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General, is also of the view that a concession, in the form of relief under section 397, Cr.P.C. may provide an opportunity to the applicants to mend themselves.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 397
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353 & 392
Application for running sentences concurrently
Applicants/accused who were convicted and sentenced in two different offences, had prayed that sentences awarded to them be ordered to run concurrently to provide them opportunity to mend themselves
Assistant Advocate-General, was also of the view that a concession in the form of relief under S.397, Cr.P.C. could be provided to accused to mend themselves
Allowing application, sentences of imprisonment in two cases were ordered to be run concurrently.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. RABBANI, J.
The applicants Fayyaz Hussain son of Mubarak, Fayyaz Ahmed son of Muhammad Ali and Aijaz Hussain son of Syed Pir Shah, committed two different offences at different time and places on the same date i.e. 1-5-1997. F.I.R. No.151 of 1997 was lodged at Clifton Police Station Karachi South in respect of a robbery in the house of complainant Barkattillah and F:I.R. No.84 of 1997 was recorded at T.P.X. Police Station Karachi West about the offences under sections 353 and 324, P. P. C.
2. On 27-4-2002 the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi West convicted the applicants under section 324, P.P.C. awarding them five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 each. Under section 353, P.P.C. they were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,
000. They were given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In the other case, these applicants were convicted by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South under section 392, P.P.C., with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,
000. This judgment was announced on 22-2-2003.
3. Through the present application, they seek an order for running sentences in the two cases concurrently. Mrs. Nasreen Zafar, learned counsel representing the applicants, submitted that the sentences awarded ,in the two cases may be ordered to run concurrently, under section 397, Cr.P.C. to provide appellants, an opportunity to mend themselves. She relied upon the case of Muhammad Imran v. The State SBLR 2001 FSC 50 where in this Court ordered running of sentences in many cases against the same convict to run concurrently. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General, is also of the view that a concession, in the form of relief under section 397, Cr.P.C. may provide an opportunity to the applicants to mend themselves.
4. In view of the case-law cited above, and the contention of the learned counsel, the application is allowed. The sentences of imprisonment awarded in two cases shall run concurrently. Application stands disposed of. H.B.T./35/FSC Order accordingly.