2002 PLP 1435 (MLD)

BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.‑‑‑Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Khuda Yar son of Pannun and Ansar son of Falak Sher were tried alongwith co‑accused Ashiq, Ilyas and Yasin under section 302, P.P.C. by Special Judge, Special Courts for Speedy Trials in case F.I.R. No.249 of 1989, dated 18‑5‑1989 registered with Police Station Arifwala, District Sahiwal and vide judgment dated 30‑9‑1991. Ashiq and Ilyas were acquitted while Khuda Yar, Ansar and Yasin were convicted for commission of murder of four persons namely Ali Sher, Zulfiqar, Faiz Ahmad and Muhammad Siddiq. In the same occurrence, one Pannun was also murdered who was companion of the accused party. Khuda Yar, Ansar and Yasin were sentenced to death on four counts and the fine of Rs. l lac, on each count. The convicts filed appeal before the Supreme Appellate Court, wherein Yasin accused was acquitted while conviction of Khuda Yar and Ansar was maintained. However, their sentences were altered from death to imprisonment for life on each count. Benefit 'of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also given to them. Through the instant petition filed by Falak Sher who is father of Ansar convict and father‑in‑law of Khuda Yar, it has been prayed that direction be issued to the Jail Authorities to consider the sentences on four counts to run concurrently and as both the convicts namely, Khuda Yar and Ansar have already served out the sentence for a period of more than 25 years, therefore, they should be ordered to be released forthwith. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on unreported judgment dated 18‑10‑2000 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.289, 290 and 291 of 1997, and 2000 PCr. LJ 1905 and unreported judgment passed in Writ Petitions 8795 of 1996 and No.16836 of 1996 to argue that in similar circumstances the life imprisonment on different counts is ordered to be run concurrently. Learned Law Officer has conceded to the legal contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant of the case has opposed the petition by arguing that there is serious apprehension that the accused if released will repeat the offence. We have given due consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the case -law referred to above. In the judgment dated 18‑10‑2000, the apex Court disposed of three appeals wherein reference has been made to 1986 SCMR 1673, 1987 SCMR 1382 and PLD 1992 SC 14, that in such‑like citations as in the instant case, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. After perusal of sections 35 and 397 of Cr.P.C., we are of the view that a` person cannot be imprisoned more than for a period of 25 years. In this case deport was sought from the Jail Authorities and report dated 12-2‑2001 submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal reveals that if the sentence of the appellants be ordered to run concurrently, they stand released from jail. Be that as it may be the case, following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court in various judgments, we allow this petition and order that the sentences awarded to Khuda Yar and Ansar convicts on four counts vide judgment dated 23‑10‑1991 will be considered to run concurrently. However, the sentence of fine or in lieu of for non‑payment of fine is maintained. H.B.T./F‑106/L Petition allowed.