2010 PLP 214 (YLR)

SALMAN ANSARI, J.

This application is moved by the applicant Muhammad Shakeel who was on 10-10-2006 convicted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South-West, Judicial Court complex, Karachi in Sessions Case No.678 of 2005 in Crime No.170/2005 for an offence punish-able under section 392/34, P.P.C. lodged at P.S. Defence Karachi, to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.25,000, in default of payment of fine further S.I. for 6 months.

2. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that applicant had disclosed to police regarding weapon used in crime, hence a pistol along with magazine containing 4 live bullets was recovered and F.I.R. No.178/2005 was registered under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance at P.S. Defence Karachi. The applicant was convicted in this case to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000. Subsequently, in appeal on S.C. No.698/2005 this Court vide order dated 14-11-2007 reduced the sentenced to 4 years and fine to Rs.5000. This application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been moved praying therein that sentence under section 392/34 P.P.C. and under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance awarded by the both Courts below to run concurrently. Learned counsel for applicant in support of his contention has relied upon the case of Muhammad Asif v. State (PLD 2003 Lah. 512) in which it was held that 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.

3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has contended that though provision of section 397 Cr.P.C. provides for sentences to run consecutively unless ordered otherwise but in view of findings of the Superior Courts as referred above, he however concedes that the sentences in the present case should run concurrently.

4. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the case law cited at bar.

5. In my humbly opinion the case cited above fully applies to the present case that where two cases are made out of the same incident although tried by different Courts, it would be just and proper that sentences awarded by the two Courts below should run concurrently. Consequently, Cr. Miscellaneous Application No.222 of 2008 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-25/K Application allowed.