2005 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 14th September, 2004. WAHID BUX BROHI, J.‑‑‑ Applicant Abdul Razzak has preferred this application from jail with a request that the sentences awarded to him be ordered to run concurrently. We have heard the applicant in person and Mr. Habib Ahmed learned A.A.‑G. for the State. From the documents annexed to the application, it transpires that the applicant was tried along with other(s) by the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.9, Karachi South in three different cases bearing No.384 of 2002, 281 of 2002 and 218 of 2002 which were decided on 29‑12‑2003. In each case the applicant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 318‑A, P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to suffer R.I. for 5 months more. In all these cases the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was allowed to him. We have considered the request of applicant within the ambit of section 397, Cr.P.C. which run as under:‑‑ "Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.‑When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is sentence 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." Perusal of the above provision would indicate that such an order could be passed by the learned trial Court at the time of announcement of each subsequent judgment, while ordering conviction. Reliance in this respect is placed on Gulzar Muhammad v. Crown PLD 1950 Lah.

497. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. and has refrained from allowing such benefit to the applicant that sentences should run concurrently. The judgments have not been challenged in this Court. Moreover, the judgments were appealable to the Sessions Court but it is not stated if appeals were accordingly preferred. We could exercise the power within the meaning of section 397, Cr.P.C. even if a revision, or for that matter suo motu revision is initiated but this would be necessitated only in exceptional circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so in order to secure the ends of justice. We have examined the case from the point of view laid down on Bashir v. The State PLD 1991 SC 1145 and the view taken by us in the Ali Akbar Shah v. The State Criminal Appeal No.73 of 1993, decided on 3‑6‑2004. This Court has also taken the view in Sikandar Ali alias Sikoo Shaikh v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 260 that such concession could be ‑extended if at least there could be close or intimate nexus between the previous. and subsequent offences. In the instant case the applicant faced trial in three distinct and different offences which were committed on 30‑11‑2002, 11‑11‑2002 and 2‑11‑2002. The cases related to theft of motorcycles; which is an alarming menace for middle class people. The trial Court was therefore, justified in declining the benefit under section 397, Cr.P.C. to the applicant while pronouncing second judgment. We find no reason to interfere with the order of learned trial Court. There is no new ground calling for exercise of discretion within the meaning of section 397, Cr.P.C. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./A‑140/K Application dismissed.