Application for suspension of sentence

2018 PCrLJN 54 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 426Application for suspension of sentenceProcedure

Only tentative assessment of available evidence and of the judgment was permissible in deciding application under S.426, Cr.P.C.

Detailed appraisal of evidence was to be avoided.

2015 YLR 2537 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.426Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 341, 353, 395, 427, 147 & 148

Causing Shajjah-i-Khaftfah, damiyah, wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dacoity, mischief, rioting

Application for suspension of sentence

Maximum quantum of sentence awarded to accused persons, was R.I. for 4 years as well as Daman

Accused persons were not involved in any criminal case nor were previously convicts

On the day of incident, there was a strike call by the Political parties against the Government to maintain law and order situation in the, area and in response to said call, general public blocked the road

When Police mobile intercepted, the mob showed resistance and Police personnel sustained injuries

Accused remained on bail during the course of trial but neither they misused the concession of bail nor made any attempt to frustrate the prosecution evidence

Four years' sentence fell within the ambit of short sentence

Due to the heavy backlog of cases pending in the court, it would not be possible to hear and decide the main appeal in the near future

Sentences of accused persons were suspended in the interest of justice, till disposal of appeal and accused were enlarged on bail, in circumstances.

2015 MLD 183 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 426Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (XVIII of 2010), S.3EncroachmentApplication for suspension of sentenceApplicants had never challenged the jurisdiction or authority of Lower Court in conducting the trial of the case

Trial Court had examined the witnesses, who were not cross-examined by applicants; and even the Trial Court allowed the application under S.540, Cr.P.C., but applicants did not challenge the statements of the witnesses

Counsel for applicants, had failed to point out any material illegality in the impugned judgment

Application for suspension of sentence, being devoid of merits, was dismissed; with direction to prepare paper book within 15 days and thereafter fix it for regular hearing, according to roster.

2014 YLR 2685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 426 & 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 114 & 34Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, abetment, common intentionApplication for suspension of sentencePowers under S.426, Cr.P.C. were not wider than powers under S.497, Cr.P.C.Deeper appreciation was not permissible under the law, while suspending the sentence

In the case of suspension of sentence, only tentative assessment of available evidence was permissible, and detailed appraisal thereof was to be avoided

Applicant/ accused had been convicted to life imprisonment for his involvement in the offence of murder on the basis of sharing common intention with principal accused

Applicability of S.34, P.P.C., could not be ruled out, in circumstances

Applicant had failed to point out any patent illegality in the judgment recorded by the Trial Court

Application for suspension of sentence being devoid of merits was dismissed.

2013 YLR 548 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 420Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.10Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertyApplication for suspension of sentenceAppreciation of evidence

Three Managers of Banks concerned, were the witnesses of the record; they through oral as well as documentary evidence had given the true picture of the occurrence and had unanimously stated that though the transaction in question had appeared in the Head Office, but no one had actually/physically made any such transaction from or through their branches; and the Bank had been subjected to fraud

All the Bank Managers were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but no question was asked from them with regard to huge fraudulent remittance from their respective branches to account maintained by accused

By putting certain suggestions, it was admitted that said transaction was in fact fictitious transaction; and had neither taken place physically nor was transacted by their branches

Accused had not denied the credit of said heavy amount in his account

Burden of proof was on the accused to prove that the entries were genuine, but he failed to produce any evidence to prove that the amount credited in his account was genuine and had never been credited in his account through fraud and forgery

Accused could produce some evidence to show that the transaction in question was genuine

Mere denial in the statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., without any convincing material in support of his stance, could never be helpful to him

Fact that accused with others had carried out fictitious bogus online deposit of huge amount in his account was confirmed and established

Accused had opened account in other banks, where he also carried out transaction of that fraudulent amount

Since the withdrawal had been made through different cheques which bore the signatures of accused, it negated the chance of mala fide on the part of Bank Officers

Said facts had clearly shown that accused, while fully knowing that the amount did not belong to him, had consciously withdrawn the same

Accused along with others, was involved in other cases of the same nature, which had revealed that they were habitual and hardened offenders

Accused, due to their filthy design, had caused great loss to public/Bank exchequer

Record produced by prosecution was not rebutted by accused with cogent reasons, orally or through document

Prosecution witnesses had clearly implicated accused with commission of offence

Evidence of witnesses (oral as well as documentary) was worthy of credence and inspired confidence which could not be shattered by defence through cross-examination, which fully supported the prosecution version

Accused had failed to prove any illegality through overwhelming and reliable reason

Huge amount having been credited and remitted to the account of accused, burden was on them to have shown their proportionate and known source of income to have justified the deposit of said amount in their account, but they failed to show their proportionate and known sources

Findings of the lower court was neither illegal nor suffering from any illegality and judgment was in accordance with law and the material available on record

Appeal being without substance was dismissed

Both sentences of imprisonment, would run, concurrently.

2013 PLD 249 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 426Bail applicationApplication for suspension of sentenceExercise of discretionPrinciples

Provisions of S.497 & 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous provisions and in the absence of any guideline, the principles which governed S.497, Cr.P.C. might guide the exercise of discretion under S.426, Cr.P.C.

2013 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 426 & 497Application for suspension of sentencePrinciples

Principles enumerated for the grant of bail under S. 497, Cr. P. C might be considered at the time of deciding an application for suspension of sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C.