1994 PLP 277 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/467/468/471/109‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court had declined to suspend the sentence simply on the ground that the same required reappraisal of evidence which was not advisable nor admissible at that stage‑‑‑Such reasons were not warranted by S.426, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑If the accused insisted on securing of an order, the Court had to consider the prayer and dispose of the application on merits even if it could not be covered by subsection (1‑A) of S. 426, Cr. P.C: -‑Much time having already elapsed, the matter was not remanded to High Court for decision on merit and High Court was directed to dispose of the accused's appeal within one month. Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Syed Ayub Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant. . Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Akram, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 11‑7‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby his application for the suspension of the sentence passed against him by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Rawalpindi, vide judgment dated 3‑2‑1993 in Case No. 31/92 in Cr. Appeal No. 30/93 against his conviction under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. read with section 5 (2)/47 PCA and sentence of four years, R.I. plus fine of Rs.20,000 or in default two years' R.I., was dismissed in limine. We have heard Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate for the petitioner; Syed Ayub Bukhari, Advocate for the complainant; and have perused the record of the case. Since the petitioner was sentenced to four years' R.I, his prayer for bail was not covered under section 426(1‑A)(b), Cr.P.C. and the learned Single Judge of the High Court who had to record reasons in writing, was not inclined to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment declined the prayer simply on the ground that it requires reappraisal of evidence which, according to him, was not advisable nor admissible at that stage. We are afraid, these reasons are not warranted by section 426, Cr.P.C. If the applicant insists on securing of an order the Court has to consider the prayer and dispose of the application on merits even if it could not be covered by subsection (1‑A) of section, 426 Cr.P.C. We are not persuaded to consider the application on merits at this stage and to bypass the High Court. However, as much time has already elapsed it would not be in the interest of the petitioner to remand the matter of suspension of sentence, to the High Court for decision on merit, instead we feel that the appeal on merit should be disposed of at an early date. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed. However, the High Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within one month. N.H.Q/M‑1838/S Leave refused.