Concurrent running of sentence

2017 PCrLJN 258 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 35Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceDouble murder committed by accused persons in the same transaction/incidentConcurrent running of sentenceScope

Offence of double murder was committed by the accused party, in the present case, which was part of the same transaction, and, thus, ordinarily sentences passed for such offence ought to have been ordered to run concurrently with each other

Order passed by Trial Court for running of sentences consecutively was unwarranted, thus modified accordingly.

2013 CLC 1856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 99(1-A)(h) & 14Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss.426 & 430Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.63(1)(h) & 199Constitutional petitionDisqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)"Conviction and sentence", distinctionConcurrent running of sentenceEffect on quantum of sentence for purpose of Art.63(1)(h) of ConstitutionScopeSuspension of sentence did not mean suspension of conviction

Petitioner impugned order of Returning Officer whereby his nomination papers were rejected as he was convicted and cumulatively sentenced to a period more than two years

Contention of the petitioner was inter alia that per S.430 Cr.P.C., judgment of Trial Court was not final till such time his pending appeal was decided and therefore the adverse effects of conviction could not be brought on an accused whose appeal was pending especially where the sentence was also suspended

Petitioner further contended that he had been cumulatively sentenced to thirteen months as his sentences were to run concurrently

Validity

Petitioner had been sentenced to thirteen months on each count and the cumulative effect of the three different convictions was that he had been sentenced for an aggregate period of thirty-nine (39) months

Although the benefit of running the sentences concurrently had been granted to the petitioner, the same did not mean that he had not been sentenced for a period of thirty-nine months

Concurrent running of a sentence was for the purpose of calculating the actual period for which the convict would be held in jail if his appeal did not succeed, however, the same had no effect on the quantum of sentence awarded by the Trial Court on each count for the purpose of Art.63(1)(h) of the Constitution read with S.99(1-A)(h) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Contention of the petitioner that till the time appeal was finally decided, his conviction would be deemed to be held in abeyance could not be accepted as nothing in the language of S.426 or 430 Cr.P.C. supported said contention

Conviction was complete as soon as the person charged had been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction and nomination papers of the petitioner were liable to be rejected on the ground that only his sentence had been suspended which did not mean that his conviction had also been suspended

Suspension of sentence without a specific order for suspension of conviction did not mean or include suspension of conviction, and despite suspension of sentence, conviction would remain intact

Distinction existed between a conviction and sentence and suspension of a sentence did not mean automatic suspension of conviction

No bar however existed on the Appellate Court under S.426, Cr.P.C. to suspend sentence and also suspend the conviction in appropriate cases where an application was moved before such court if the adverse consequences of maintaining such conviction were brought to the notice of the Appellate Court and a specific prayer was made in such regard

No illegality existed in the impugned order

Constitutional petition being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.