1968 SCMR 280 (PLP)
NAZRUL ISLAM-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL SARKAR AND ANOTHER -Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 280 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | NAZRUL ISLAM-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL SARKAR AND ANOTHER -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 280 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 280 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 280 (PLP) (NAZRUL ISLAM-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL SARKAR AND ANOTHER -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. K.Chakrabarty, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by B. C. Panday, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 19th April 1967, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 514 and 515 of 1966). Sentence-Separate trials the nigh on identical charges-No provisions in Cr. P. C. that sentences sh mild run concurrently.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This will cover Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 44-D and 50-D of 1967. The petitioner stands convicted under section 406/420, P. P.C. and sentenced to six months, rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs. 503 and Rs. 1,000 respectively, in two separate trials for cheating two intending Hajis and misappropriating the sums of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 paid by them respectively for depositing in the Government treasury. Both the Sessions Judge on appeal and the High Court in revision have maintained the respective convictions and sentences of the petitioner. He now seeks leave to appeal. The only point urged at the hearing of the revision petition in the High Court was that the trial Court should have directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence of six months, rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in a third case on an identical charge. The High Court overruled the contention on the view that these were three different transactions involving different persons and as such there was no question of directing the sentences to run concurrently. In the matter of sentence the learned Judge considered that the petitioner had been dealt with rather leniently. The view adopted by the High court is plainly correct. The learned counsel has not pointed out to us any provision of the Code under which the sentences awarded to the petitioner in three separate trials though on identical charges could be made to run concurrently. The petitions are thus without merit and we hereby dismiss them. Petitions dismissed.