2006 PLP 1400 (YLR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.

This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.345-M, 346-M, 347-M, 348-M and 349-M and Criminal Miscellaneous No.350-M of 2006 as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. The petitioner, through these criminal petitions, seeks concurrent running of the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the following cases:-- Case No. Offence (1) 92 of 2001 392, P.P.C. (2) 217 of 2001 392, C.P.C. (3) 219 of 2001 392, C.P.C. (4) 220 of 2001 392, C.P.C. (5) 246 of 2001 7 Illicit Arms Act (6) 181 of 2001 353, 324, P.P.C. (7) 184 of 2001 392, P.P.C. (8) 205 of 2001 401, P.P.C. (9) 218 of 2001 353, 324, 427, P.P.C. (10) 412 of 2001 394, P.P.C. (11) 101 of 2001 392, P.P.C. (12) 91 of 2001 392, P.P.C. (13) 209 of 2001 392, P.P.C. (14) 57 of 2001 392, P.P.C. Date of Punishment decision 1-10-2002 3 years' R.I. along with fine of Rs. 1000 or in default thereof S.I. for one month. 4-9-2002 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default thereof S.I for 2 months 4-9-2002 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default S.I for 2 months 4-9-2002 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default thereof S.I for 2 months 12-12-2002 2 years' R.I. 12-10-2002 5 years R.I. with fine Rs.1000 12-10-2002 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000 or in default thereof two months' S.I. 11-11-2002 2 years R.I. 11-11-2002 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 in default thereof S.I. for two months. 12-9-2002 4 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000 or in default thereof S.I. for one month. 12-9-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000 or in default thereof S.I. for one month. 15-11-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default S.I. for six months. 15-11-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default S.I. for six months. 12-9-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000 or in default S.I. for one month. 12-9-2002 4 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000 or in default thereof S.I. for one month. 12-9-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000 or in default thereof S.I. for one month. 15-11-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default S.I. for six months. 15-11-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000 or in default S.I. for six months. 12-9-2002 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000 or in default S.I. for one month. The conviction was recorded in the aforementioned cases on the confession made by the petitioner-accused.

3. The application was submitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in the capacity of Justice of Peace for issuing order for running the sentences concurrently. It was dismissed. The petitioner brought Criminal Revision No.22 of 2005 in this Court. It was disposed of as withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner wishes to file an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, instead of filing of an appeal 14 criminal revision petitions were filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment directed concurrent running of sentences in cases registered vide F.I.Rs. Nos.218, 181 and 184 of 2001. Refusal qua rest of the cases has been assailed through these criminal Miscellaneous.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General in support of their respective contentions.

5. Section 397, Cr.P.C. was pressed into service, which is re-produced below: "Sentence on 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." It bestowed powers upon this Court to direct that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with such previous sentences. It is manifest from the language of the above provisions of law that the discretion vests with the trial Court recording second conviction to pass an order in this regard in absence whereof, it shall run consecutively.

6. The learned Revisional Court accepted the petitioner's revision petition in three cases on the ground that the judgment of the learned trial Court was announced on one and the same date by the same Presiding Officer. On this analogy why sentences passed subsequently could not be allowed to run concurrently. I have not come across any obstacle in my way in granting relief to the petitioner whose case is unique and of first impression. He at the very outset made confession and was repentant. He saved precious time of the learned trial Court. His such gesture and remorse did require favourable consideration in terms of lesser sentence. Though the Courts are required to pass sentences as required by law but should not lose sight of the fact that if an accused has taken steps to reform himself, he should not be frustrated. Leniency in sentence in case of voluntary confession of guilt has been the settled policy of the Courts. For what has been discussed above, all the sentences shall run concurrently. Sentence of fine in all the cases is reduced to Rs.25,000, which has been deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court vide Receipt No.2362 dated 30-3-2006. The petitions are allowed in the above terms. H.B.T. /M-148/L Petitions allowed.