Concurrent running of sentences

2026 SCMR 197 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 392Qatl-i-amd and robberyRe-appraisal of evidenceConcurrent running of sentencesAccused was convicted of robbery with murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on two countsAccused contended that both the sentences should run concurrentlyValidity

Recovery witnesses of looted articles were cross-examined at length but nothing favourable to accused could be brought on the record

Prosecution case against accused was corroborated by recoveries of motorcycle, mobile phone of the deceased, original identity card of complainant and Rs.300/-, which were looted during the occurrence

No empty was recovered from the spot, therefore, High Court rightly held that recovery of pistol at the pointing out of accused was inconsequential for prosecution

Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Supreme Court declined to interfere in convictions and sentences awarded to accused

Supreme Court directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently

Appeal was dismissed.

2026 PCrLJ 451 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35, 397 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah, common intentionSeparate trials for separate offencesConcurrent running of sentencesScopeAccused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced in case FIR No. 297/2001Accused was tried in another case FIR No. 47/2006 and was convicted and sentenced

Report of jail authorities showed that since sentences of the petitioner in both cases were not ordered to run concurrently by any Trial Court as well as appellate Court, therefore, the sentences of both the cases were calculated as consecutive

Validity

Court could order for concurrent running of the sentences awarded to the convict in a case or even in more cases

Superior Courts have jurisdiction under S.561-A read with S.35 and/or S.397, Cr.P.C., as the case may be, to order that such multiple sentences in the same transaction/trial or in a separate and subsequent trial run concurrently

High Court ordered that sentences awarded to the petitioner/convict in both the said cases would run concurrently

Petition was disposed of.

2025 PLD 116 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35, 397 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-FDishonestly issuing a chequeSeparate trials for the same offenceConcurrent running of sentencesScope

Section 397, Cr.P.C provides that even if an accused person was sentenced in two or more cases and tried separately, in such eventuality, such sentences could be ordered to run concurrently

Applying the said yardstick to the case of petitioner, the case of the petitioner would be covered under S. 397, Cr.P.C., as he too had been convicted for the same kind of offence in different trials

In case earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of handing down the subsequent conviction/sentence, the Trial or Appellate/Revisional Court could exercise such jurisdiction even after the sentence of imprisonment in subsequent trial was announced in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., read with S. 397, Cr.P.C., provided of course, where the trial, or Superior Courts of appeal have specifically and consciously ordered the sentences either in same trial or in subsequent trial to run consecutively

Thus, there remains no doubt that the High Court has jurisdiction under S. 561-A read with S. 35 and or S. 397, Cr.P.C., as the case may, to order such multiple sentences in same transaction/trial or in a separate and subsequent trial to run concurrently

Section 397, Cr.P.C, shows that the Court, while analyzing the facts and circumstances of every case, is competent to direct that sentences in two different trials would run concurrently

In such eventuality, the Court has wide power to direct that sentences in one trial would run concurrently

Provision of S. 397, Cr.P.C., conferred wide discretion on the Court to extend such benefit to the accused in a case of peculiar nature, like the present one

Thus, extending the beneficial provision in favour of the appellant would clearly meet the ends of justice

Constitutional petition was allowed and High Court directed that sentences of the petitioner shall run concurrently instead of consecutively.

2020 PLD 523 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35 & 397Sentence in case of conviction of several offences at one trialSentence on an offender already sentenced for another offenceConcurrent running of sentencesScope

Petitioner contended that sentences handed to him in two FIRs (one of them being the offshoot of the other) be ordered to run concurrently

Sessions Judge, at the time of decision of appeal, had not noticed that the petitioner was already serving sentence

Courts generally took generous view in the matter of sentences affecting deprivation of life or liberty of a person and unless some aggravating circumstances did not permit so, liberally exercised enabling power under Ss.35 & 397, Cr.P.C., respectively to order concurrent running of sentence in one trial and so also consolidation of earlier sentence while handing down sentence of imprisonment in a subsequent trial

No exceptional circumstances, held, existed to reject prayer of the petitioner

Petition was allowed.

2020 PCrLJ 447 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 382-B, 35, 397 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149Concurrent running of sentencesInherent jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner was arrested in an earlier registered case wherein he was granted post arrest bail on 08.07.1996 and during the pendency of the trial, he was declared proclaimed offender on 25.09.1999

Another criminal case stood registered against him at the same Police Station wherein he was captured on 28.10.2000 and sent into the judicial lockup without showing his arrest in the earlier case in which he had already been declared proclaimed offender

Petitioner had faced the trial in both the cases as an under-trial prisoner till to year, 2009

After conclusion of trial in the earlier registered case, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to capital punishment, by the Trial Court which was converted into the imprisonment for life by a Division Bench of High Court

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the same court in the subsequently registered case but, in appeal, he was acquitted of the charge

Only hurdle in the way of releasing the petitioner from jail was that the jail authorities were reluctant in counting the period from 28.10.2000 to 24.06.2009 for the purpose of benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. because his arrest on 28.10.2000 was not entered in the earlier registered case by the police officer wherein he was presently undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life although he had faced the trial on summoning from jail by the Trial Court

Petitioner had faced the agony of trial for about nine years in both the cases being under-trial prisoner and also the proceedings of appeal for more than ten years

Under S. 397, Cr.P.C., Court had wide discretion to direct two different sentences in two different trials to run concurrently

Question before the court was to whether the period in which an accused was in the judicial lockup in one case and the trial is/was in progress in the other case in which he had been granted bail but not released from jail due to the pendency of the other cases would be reckoned in order to extend him the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Record showed that petitioner was facing hardship due to the mistake of the police officer, who had arrested him in the subsequently registered case but did not enter his arrest on the judicial remand paper of his earlier registered case in which he was declared proclaimed offender

Jail authorities had no legal justification in excluding the period undergone by the petitioner as an under trial prisoner in both the cases simultaneously merely on account of a mistake of the police officer

Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1012 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss.35 & 397Conviction of several offences at different trialsConcurrent running of sentencesScopeContention of accused was that he had already served more than forty five years imprisonmentValidityCase of the accused had been specifically dealt with by the Supreme Court and relief claimed had been declinedHigh Court could not go beyond the judgment of Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 135 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35, 397 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b), 324 & 353Pakistan Arms Act (XX of 1965), S.13(d)Concurrent running of sentencesInherent jurisdiction of High CourtAccused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on four counts and was also convicted for other offencesPlea raised by the accused was that all sentences were require to run concurrently

Only one incident had taken place but different offences were involved, therefore, four different FIRs were lodge din same police station and even the Investigating Officer was the same

High Court found it fit and proper to exercise its discretion in favour of accused persons for concurrent running of sentences

High Court directed that all the sentences awarded to the accused persons be run concurrently

Application was allowed accordingly.

2015 PLD 15 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35 & 397Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 6Conviction of several offences at one trialDeath sentenceCommuted to life imprisonment by the GovernmentQuantum of period of imprisonmentScope­Hardship caseDiscretion of courtConcurrent running of sentencesAppellant was sentenced to death and a total period of imprisonment was equal to 214 yearsSubsequently death sentence awarded to appellant was commuted to life imprisonment by the Government

Held that, according to the calculation chart, the total period of imprisonment came to 214 years and the total amount of fine imposed was Rs.17,20000/- or in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 11-1/2 years

After getting benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. and various remissions, granted by the Federal and Provincial Governments and the jail authorities, the appellant had undergone sentence of 42 years, 7 months and 21 days

Court of law could not fold up its hands to deny the benefit of Ss. 35 & 397, Cr.P.C. to the appellant as denial would amount to ruthless treatment and he would certainly die while undergoing such long period of imprisonment

If concurrent running of sentences was denied to the appellant, it would bring at naught the benefit conferred upon him by the amnesty given by the Government and ultimately the object of the same would be squarely defeated as appellant would meet natural death during imprisonment

Construing the beneficial provisions in favour of the appellant would clearly meet the ends of justice

Supreme Court directed that all the sentences awarded to the appellant shall run and shall be deemed to have run concurrently; that the appellant shall also have the benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.0 and all the remissions whether granted by the Federal and Provincial Governments or the jail authorities, shall be extended to him

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2013 SCMR 583 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 452 & 337-A(i)/337-F(i)Qatl-e-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, shajjah-i- khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyahAppreciation of evidenceConcurrent running of sentencesScopeDifferent offences committed in "one and the same transaction"Accused was alleged to have murdered the deceased and caused injuries to the injured personTrial Court convicted accused under Ss.302(b), 452, 337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C. and sentenced him to deathHigh Court reduced sentence of death to imprisonment for life

Accused contended that while reducing his sentence to life imprisonment High Court omitted to pass an order regarding concurrent running of his sentences

Validity

All the offences for which accused was convicted had been committed in one and the same transaction and thus, it would serve the interests of justice if all the sentences of imprisonment passed against accused were ordered to run concurrently with each other

High Court had inadvertently omitted ordering running of sentences of imprisonment concurrently

Appeal was disposed of by Supreme Court with the direction that sentences of imprisonment passed against accused would run concurrently with each other.

2013 SCMR 16 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 397Concurrent running of sentencesScope

Consecutive sentences, in terms of S.397, Cr.P.C. was a general rule while concurrent sentence was an exception and was to be awarded in the exercise of discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case

Court, while exercising such discretion, might inter alia look into the conduct of the convict, heinousness of the crime and injury to the individual and society.