P L D 2003 Lahore 512 (PLP)

2. Muhammad Asif, the petitioner in this case, suffered sentence under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C in view of F.I.R No.53 of 1996.

3. Through the interrogation of that above case, a gun was got recovered by him although this was a licensed weapon but the licence was in the name of his father and consequently as a sequel to the murder case, a case under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 was also registered against him in view of F.I.R No.63 of 1996. In the latter case under the Arms Ordinance, he got 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,

000. The benefit under section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. was extended to him. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, also failed.

5. In the murder case, the matter came up before this Court and vide. his judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1997, my learned brother Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema, J., as he then was, upheld the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Muhammad Asif petitioner for causing the Qatl-e- Amd of Muhammad Nawaz by firing at him with his .12 bore gun, while upholding the findings of the learned Additional Sessions. Judge, Khushab, dated 15-7-1997. He was also asked to pay Rs.30,000 as compensation.

6. It is argued before this Court the case under the Arms Ordinance also arose because of the, murder case acid until an order was passed under section 397, Cr.P.C., the sentences of Muhammad Asif are to run consecutively.

7. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. 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, further, 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."

8. In the following cases, we find almost a similar situation emerging where on account of one occurrence, different offences were made out calling for different sentences and trials and the superior Courts felt that the provisions of section 397 of the Cr.P.C. were applicable and ordered the running of the sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. These cases are: (i) AIR 1929 Allahabad 585; (ii) AIR 1931 Bombay 529(I); (iii) AIR 1961 Patna 138; (iv) AIR 1964 Andh. Pra. 449; (v) PLD 1977 Kar. 833 (Zakir Ali v. The State) and (vi) 1987 PCr.LJ 2169 (Altaf Hussain v. The State).

9. It has further been argued that the Appellate Court was fully empowered to exercise powers under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. which is also exercisable by the trial Court in view of the powers vesting under section 426 of the Cr.P.C.

10. This Court agrees with these arguments and while invoking the provision of section 397, Cr.P.C., directs that the sentences in both the cases, F.I.Rs. Nos.53 of 1996 and 63 of 1996 shall run concurrently. M.B.A./M-1843/L Order accordingly.