Suspension of sentence

Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioner without obtaining prior permission of competent authorities had cut down 02 live trees which was recovered from the accused

Case was submitted before the Forest Magistrate for legal proceedings

Forest Magistrate framed the charge against the accused-petitioner, wherein he had confessed his guilt and Forest Magistrate had convicted and sentenced him

Petitioner filed an appeal, but same was dismissed

Validity

Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner had been convicted and sentenced for 06-months imprisonment, which was a short sentence

Sentence awarded to the appellant/petitioner was short and lawyers of the region were on strike for the last 06 months and they were not appearing in regular appeals/revisions etc, except urgent matters

Before the criminal appeal of the appellant/petitioner was fixed for final arguments, it was quite possible that the petitioner/appellant might have served out his entire sentence

Moreover, the petitioner/appellant had served out about one month and 26 days out of total 06-months awarded imprisonment, hence the petitioner was entitled for suspension of his sentence

Sentence of the petitioner was suspension and he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D, 148 & 149-Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence

Delay in disposal of appeal

Petitioner had not been assigned any injury on the body of the deceased and he had been attributed the role of inflicting churri blow on the abdomen of injured

As per report submitted by the jail authorities, the petitioner had already undergone a period of about 08 years 02 months and 06 days and the remaining portion of his sentence was 01 year 09 months and 24 days, meaning thereby that the petitioner had undergone the major portion of his sentence

Main criminal appeal of the petitioner had already been admitted for regular hearing but there was no possibility of early fixation and decision of the main appeal filed by the petitioner before the Court as the same pertained to the year 2022

Nothing was on record to show that the petitioner contributed towards the delay in decision of his main appeal

If the sentence awarded to the petitioner was not suspended then there was likelihood that he might serve out his entire sentence before the decision of main case on merits and it would amount to awarding the petitioner punishment in advance

Petition was allowed and sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was released on bail, in circumstances.

Returning Officer rejected nomination papers of appellant/candidate as he had been convicted for commission of a criminal offence

Validity

There was no order of any court of competent jurisdiction regarding suspension of appellant/candidate's conviction

Suspension of sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C. and suspension of conviction were poles apart

Conviction attained finality upon determination of guilt by Court of competent jurisdiction

During pendency of appeal, the Appellate Court, pursuant to S. 426, Cr.P.C., suspended execution of appellant/ candidate's sentence

Suspension pertained solely to the sentence and not the conviction, which remained operative until set aside by higher Appellate Courts

Mere pendency of appeal did not automatically nullify conviction

Appellate Court under S. 426, Cr.P.C., was not empowered to suspend conviction rather, it was a discretionary measure extended to accused

Suspension of sentence did not imply expungement of underlying conviction

Suspension of sentence imposed on appellant/candidatedid not affect the completed conviction, which had arisen upon determination of guilt by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that conviction held the field

Election Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer as the same was speaking, well-reasoned and neither illegal nor without lawful authority

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Provision of S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C., remains applicable only when High Court certifies that case involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution and a person earns a right of appeal to Supreme Court which of course is a "special leave to appeal" as mentioned in S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C

If High court refuses to issue such certificate, the leave to appeal (not special leave to appeal) is available to aggrieved person as mentioned in O. XXIII, R. 2 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Accused persons were convicted in private complaint case for committing Qatl-i-amd and were sentenced to imprisonment for life

Accused persons sought suspension of their sentences

Validity

Through S. 205 of Government of India Act, 1935, when High Court certified to file appeal before Federal Court which was a special leave to appeal to Federal Court and when by virtue of S. 209(3) of Government of India Act, 1935, Federal Court was authorized to stay execution of any sentence on filing an appeal from judgment of High Court, there was no necessity to insert subsection (2B) in S. 426, Cr.P.C. because purpose was already served

As such the provision was introduced in year 1946 for those convicts for whom special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by High Court and it was learnt that Court of His Majesty in Council was 6000 miles away, therefore, it was expected that by the time appeal was filed, lest convict should not serve out his entire sentence

His Majesty in Council remained part of Federal Court Rules, because on granting leave to appeal by the Federal Court one could file appeal before His Majesty in Council against Judgment of Federal Court

Federal Court under O. XIX, R. 7 of Federal Court Rules, 1950, was authorized to stay execution of sentence pending appeal against judgment of High Court

With the promulgation of Constitution of Pakistan, 1956, remedy before His Majesty in Council was eliminated but appellate forum for High Court was designated as Supreme Court

Similarly, under O. XXIV, R. 5-B of Supreme Court Rules, 1956 and O. XXIII, R. 8, of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, power to stay execution of any sentence was available to the Supreme Court at the time when petition for leave to appeal was filed or leave was granted by Supreme Court

There was no need to have recourse to High court for suspension of sentence

Word 'may' used in S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C., made it discretionary to grant bail to the seekers and High Court could well refuse the same

High Court declined to invoke jurisdiction under S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C.

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

More than two years had gone by and there was no likelihood of hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the near future

Petitioner was not previously convicted for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life

Petitioner was neither a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal nor he was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment of life

More than three years had gone by since filing of appeal by the petitioner which had not been disposed of yet

Delay in hearing of said appeal had not been occasioned by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf and there was no prospect of an early hearing of the main appeal

Application for suspension of sentence was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, punishment for other hurt, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence

Accused persons sought suspension of their sentences awarded to them under Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(1), 109, 148 & 149, P.P.C. pending their appeal

As per record, it was observed in the first place that sentence awarded to present accused/ convict was short one and there was no likelihood of decision of the main appeal in near future

In case, the accused/ petitioner was not released on bail during the pendency of his appeal, there was every possibility that, before the decision of his appeal, he would have undergone his entire sentence

Furthermore, it would certainly be impossible to compensate the accused/petitioner for his detention in jail if ultimately he was acquitted after having served out his entire sentence

In the said circumstances, coupled with the principle of safe administration of justice, it seemed appropriate to order the release of accused/petitioner by way of suspension of his sentence

Petition of said accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, punishment for other hurt, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence

Not allowed

Accused persons sought suspension of their sentences awarded to them under Ss.302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(1), 109, 148 & 149, P.P.C., pending their appeal

Record showed that accused/ convict was specifically named in the FIR as well as in the private complaint and upon conclusion of investigation he was found involved in the commission of alleged crime

Trial Court after recording prosecution evidence held accused/convict guilty and proceeded to convict and sentence him accordingly

When an accused was held guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence so led at trial, initial presumption of innocence simply stood vanished

Accused/convict failed to point out any obvious legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment

No case of suspension of sentence to the extent of said accused/convict was made out

Petition of said accused for suspension of sentence was dismissed.

Accused persons sought suspension of their sentences awarded to them under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 pending their appeal before the Supreme Court

From the perusal of leave granting order by the Supreme Court, prima facie, it appeared that leave was granted to reappraise the evidence on the dimension of safe custody of the recovered substance as well as safe transmission of samples to the office of Chemical Examiner

Improvements and contradictions pointed out in the prosecution case were the facts which were pressed into service by the counsel for the accused persons, which had persuaded the Supreme Court to grant leave

Probability could not be ruled out that the prosecution case might fall through in the long run

Accused persons having been arrested in 2011 were languishing in jail ever since

Continued incarceration for indefinite period of time would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution's case

Sentence of the accused persons was suspended pending decision of their appeal before the Supreme Court

Petition was allowed.

Bare reading of S. 426(2-B), Cr.P.C., manifests that two conditions have been laid down for suspension of sentence i.e. where High Court is satisfied that a convicted person had been granted special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the other if High Court thinks fit that sentence or order appealed against be suspended.

Accused was convicted and sentenced by Accountability Court for commission of offence of assets beyond known sources of income, misuse of authority and cheating members of public at large

Accused sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he had filed application to enter into plea bargain

Validity

Accused after filing appeal against conviction and sentence, lodged an application under S. 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Along with said application, accused also submitted bank pay order in favor of Chairman NAB of the amount which was determined by Accountability Court as his liability

Finalization of proceedings under plea bargain would require some time on completion whereof petitioner in any case would have to be released

High Court suspended his sentence awarded by Accountability Court

Bail was granted, in circumstances

Keeping in view sub-clause (c) of subsection (1A) of S. 426, Cr.P.C., appellants were entitled for suspension of their sentence on the statutory ground as it was mandatory provision of law

Sentences of petitioners were suspended.

Benefit of doubt can be extended to accused even at preliminary stage i.e. bail and suspension of sentence.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life, who sought suspension of their sentences on statutory delay in conclusion of appeal

Validity

Accused persons had been behind the bars since date of their arrests i.e. 14.4.2012 and they were awarded sentence vide judgment dated 22.12.2017

Accused persons had undergone 8 years of sentence and disposal of appeal was not within sight in near future

Liberty of a person was precious right and the same was also safeguarded/guaranteed under the Constitution

Ground of statutory delay was available to accused persons as provided under S.426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.

High Court suspended sentences of accused persons on the ground if after suffering incarceration in jail the accused persons were ultimately acquitted, there would be no compensation for their incarceration

Sentence was suspended, in circumstances.

Except where it has been provided either by law or by rules or by a special order, it is an exclusive prerogative of Chief Justice that all cases have to be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone/Single Bench

Word 'a case' includes a motion application, petition, reference, suit, appeal, revision or other proceedings to be heard and disposed of by High Court under any law in exercise of its extra ordinary, original or appellate jurisdiction

Unless Division Bench of High Court passes an order in terms of S.422, Cr.P.C. read with R. 2 of Chapter 3 of Part-B of Volume V of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, by issuing notice to acquitted accused, mere filing of appeal against acquittal has no bearing upon maintainability of such appeal or application seeking suspension of sentence, before Single Bench of High Court.

Petitioner was convicted under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment had sought suspension of his sentence

Validity

Record showed that petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.09. 2017 and the present appeal was lodged on 29.09.2017 before High Court, which was still pending adjudication

In routine petitioner would be entitled to bail on the ground that more than two years had gone by and there was no likelihood of hearing of his appeal in the near future

Nothing was on the record to show that the petitioner was a previous convict or a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

More than three years had gone but the appeal had not been disposed of

Delay in hearing of the appeal had not been caused by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf

Petition was allowed and the sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.

Record showed that since his arrest petitioner was behind the bars and chances of disposal of his appeal in the near future were bleak due to rush of work

Liberty of a person being precious right, was safeguarded/guaranteed under the Constitution

Petitioner was neither hardened nor desperate criminal

If after suffering the incarceration in jail, the petitioner was ultimately acquitted, there would be no compensation for his incarceration

While accepting the petition, sentence of the petitioner was suspended till the final decision of his appeal and he was released on bail.

Co-accused to whom role of inflicting injuries to injured prosecution witness was attributed, was acquitted by Trial Court through same judgment and accused was convicted and sentenced for committing murder

Accused did not cause any injury to deceased rather role of causing firearm injuries to deceased was attributed to accused person since acquitted through same judgment

Neither motive was attributed to accused by prosecution nor could be established against him during trial

High Court suspended the sentence awarded to accused as conviction recorded against him for committing murder needed reappraisal of evidence

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.30.747 million and had caused loss to government exchequer

Trial Court convicted accused persons for having illegal gains, misuse of authority, criminal breach of trust and abetment and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years along with fine

Accused sought suspension of sentence

Validity

Power of appellate Court under S.426(1) Cr.P.C. was not limited and the Court could during pendency of an appeal, suspend sentence of a convict in an appropriate case in its discretion for good and sufficient reasons

Such power of suspension of sentence and grant of bail was not wider than that under S.497, Cr.P.C. and unless it was shown that conviction was based on no evidence or was based on inadmissible evidence and was not ultimately sustainable

Grant of bail under S. 426(1), Cr.P.C. with the consideration of ascertaining question of guilt or innocence on merits through appraisal of evidence was not justified

Bail either under S. 497, Cr.P.C. or 426(1), Cr.P.C. could be allowed only on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence

Accused persons remained on bail during trial and they were taken into custody when judgment was announced, who had not completed substantial period of their conviction

High Court declined to suspend sentences of accused persons during pendency of their appeal as prima facie evidence was against them

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

No allegation was leveled regarding any misuse or abuse of concession of bail by petitioner during entire proceedings/trial of the case

Petitioner was old retired lady and law envisaged concession for her in the matter of bail

Sentence of imprisonment passed by Trial Court was quite short

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Sentence awarded to petitioners was short one and possibility of hearing of appeals filed by them against judgment passed by Trial Court, in the wake of backlog of cases in near future was farsighted

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Mere conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence did not make out a case for suspension of sentence awarded by a competent court of law after full trial of the case, provided the same rang true and connected all the events in a chain.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to him

Perusal of jail report showed that the un-expired period of sentence of the petitioner was 02 years, 07 months and 22 days

Appeal was filed by the petitioner in the year 2019 but the same could not be decided so far due to heavy backlog

Possibility could not be ruled out that the petitioner might serve out his remaining sentence before the decision of his main appeal on merits, which would amount to awarding punishment to the petitioner in advance

Petition was allowed and sentence of petitioner was suspended and he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Four years had elapsed from the date of passing of the impugned judgment and a period of three years and eleven months from the date of filing of appeal but the main appeal of the petitioner could not be decided so far

Nothing was on the record to suggest that the petitioner contributed towards the delay in the decision of main appeal

Nothing was on record to suggest that the petitioner was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or he was a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Petitioner had earned the statutory right for suspension of his sentence and grant of bail as provided under subsection 1-A(c) to S. 426, Cr.P.C., in circumstances

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Joint application for compromise between the appellant and complainant/respondent had been filed duly supported by affidavits which was taken on record

Respondent/complainant had also made a statement to the effect that possession of disputed property had been handed over to him and, therefore, he had no objection to the acquittal of the appellant-accused from all the charges including payment of fine

Statement was also taken on record

Admittedly, both the parties had amicably settled all their differences and had agreed to pass rest of their time in peace, tranquillity and harmony

Non-compoundability of a particular offence under any provision of law was not to be read in isolation but it read in the background of each case and beneficial interpretation to be adapted

When both the parties had earnestly decided to live in peace and tranquility, by ignoring and settling all their past differences, then for the sake of their welfare in general and betterment of socio-economic conditions of the society as a whole, it would be a prime need of the time to accept the compromise and consequently acquit the accused-appellant from the charge

Appellant-accused was convicted under subsection (2) of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

High Court observed that although, Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was silent as to whether it was compoundable or not, however, the dispute being related to property was presumed to be of civil nature

Room for negotiation, in civil rights, ever remained open, therefore, the legislature in its wisdom had left it open for the courts to decide such issue

Keeping in view the compromise, which had taken place between the parties outside the court, it was not proper to uphold the conviction specially when the complainant himself did not want to pursue his case anymore and had raised no objection to the acquittal of the accused-appellant

Compromise application arrived at between the parties merited consideration, therefore the same was accepted

Consequently, appeal was disposed of.

Legislature had not provided any specific provision of law in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for compounding the offence

Section 9 of the Act, provided that unless otherwise provided in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the provisions contained under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 shall be applicable to all the proceedings under the Act

Compromise arrived at between the parties under the Act would be treated as the compromise within the meaning of S. 345, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and was released on bail but due to multiple critical illnesses, sought suspension of sentence

Validity

Administrative control of Kot Lakhpat jail was exercised by Provincial Government and under R. 145 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 release or suspension of sentence of prisoner could be made under S. 401, Cr.P.C. by Provincial Government on recommendation of Inspector-General Prisons

Central Jail (Lahore) [Kot Lakhpat jail] was under Provincial Government and Inspector-General of the Province could have made recommendations to Provincial Government for release of petitioner on account of indisposition and Provincial Government on its own could have suspended sentence if it was believed circumstances so warranted

Application under S. 401(2), Cr.P.C. could also be made to Provincial Government for similar reasons of administrative control over central prison where petitioner was serving sentence even though, opinion was to be requisitioned from Accountability Court at Islamabad Capital Territory

High Court granted eight weeks bail to petitioner by suspending sentence handed down by Trial Court and directed that in case health of petitioner did not improve and he needed further medical attention, Provincial Government might on its own decide issue regarding suspension of sentence and petitioner could approach provincial government under S. 401(2), Cr.P.C.

Sentence of accused was suspended and bail was granted in circumstances.

Provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 exclude jurisdiction of courts to grant bail under S. 497, Cr.P.C. as well as suspension of sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C., however, the power to suspend or remit a sentence in terms of S. 401, Cr.P.C. was not excluded under S. 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

No bar existed even in cases of National Accountability Bureau for Provincial Government to exercise such power under S. 401, Cr.P.C.

Provisions of S. 401(4)(a), Cr.P.C. also apply to sentence passed under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or any other law

Section 401, Cr.P.C. is applicable to all prisoners/persons serving sentence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Rationalization of two provisions would be that where convicted person/appellant seeking setting aside of sentence in appeal may also request court for suspension of sentence then in that eventuality executive power ought not be exercised under principle of propriety

Where executive authority has been exercised and while doing so principle of discretion, reasonableness and rationalization are not adhered to exercise of such power, same is subject to judicial scrutiny

If the executive takes note of matter under S. 401, Cr.P.C. that does not deprive court of its jurisdiction under S. 426, Cr.P.C. or curtail the same

Rationale behind S. 401, Cr.P.C. is that Provincial Government on its own can scrutinize the matter and where for reasons it believes that sentence is to be suspended can do so without even convicted person agitating the matter.

Provincial Government/Executive authority under S. 401, Cr.P.C. has ample power to suspend sentence of any prisoner on any ground.

Provincial Government under S. 401(1), Cr.P.C. can, on its own, pass any order regarding suspension of sentence, however, where suspension is conditional the concerned prisoner has to give consent to it

Application can be made by any prisoner under S. 401(2), Cr.P.C. to Provincial Government for suspension of sentence

Where such application is made, matter is referred to court which passed sentence which would render its opinion and furnish it to Provincial Government which then decides the matter.

From perusal of order sheets, it revealed that the counsel for the accused persons was in attendance on each and every date of hearing and he had not sought a single adjournment

No likelihood of hearing of main criminal appeal in near future existed as only two judges of Chief Court were functioning and the Chief Justice was on medical leave and appeal could not be decided by a Single Bench of Chief Court

Nothing was available on record to show that the accused persons were previous convict, hardened, dangerous criminals or accused of an act of terrorism

More than two years and four months had passed since the appeal was filed but the same had not been decided/disposed of till today

Delay in hearing and deciding of the appeal had not been caused by the accused persons

Petition was allowed and sentence awarded to the accused persons was suspended, in circumstances.

Petitioner had been convicted by the Accountability Court in respect of offences under Ss. 9(a)(v) & 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine

Medical history of petitioner brought on record did suggest that he had a long history of various ailments including cardiac complications, kidney problems, hypertension and diabetes

After extending due deference to the consistent medical opinion of senior doctors available on record, the prayer made by the petitioner regarding his admission to bail upon suspension of his sentence for a limited period was found to be reasonable

Petitioner was admitted to bail for a period of six weeks upon suspension of his sentence subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. Five million with two sureties each in the like amount, with the directions that the petitioner shall not leave or be allowed to leave the country; that bail granted to petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled upon expiry of six weeks whereupon the petitioner shall surrender to custody voluntarily failing which he shall be taken into custody; that surrender to custody shall not include surrendering before a court with an application for bail, and that the petitioner may get himself medically treated from medical practitioners and medical facilities of his choice in the country.

Suspension of the sentence awarded to the candidate would have no consequence on his conviction which was complete as soon as the person charged had been found guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction

Conviction of the candidate was relevant in the context of Art. 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and S. 27(2)(i) of the Punjab Local Governments Act, 2013 ("Act")

Suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the conviction of the candidate the purposes of being qualified to contest either the local bodies elections or the elections for the Legislative Assemblies

Unless the conviction was specifically suspended by the Appellate Court by assigning cogent reasons therefor, or the appeal of the candidate was ultimately allowed and his conviction as well as sentence were set aside by the Appellate Court, the conviction of the candidate would continue to hold the field and the disqualification incurred by him, by reason of this conviction, shall remain intact.

No allegation had been levelled regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by the accused or co-accused persons

Accused was already in jail after having been convicted and sentenced in connection with another criminal case, whereas one of the co-accused was a woman and the law envisaged concession for her in the matter of bail

Moreover sentence of imprisonment passed by the Trial Court against the other co-accused was quite short

Supreme Court, in such circumstances, declined to interfere with the jurisdiction and discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of granting bail to accused and co-accused persons upon suspension of their sentences

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

Four persons who were convicted under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sought suspension of their sentences

Validity

Admittedly, one of the lady accused at the time of her arrest was accompanied by one minor daughter; she was pregnant of 28 weeks and during captivity gave birth to a male child; second lady accused was accompanied by two daughters at the time of her arrest; third lady accused, as per her counsel, was old and infirm

Accused ladies were only sentenced for five years, which was a short sentence and there was no likelihood of appeal being taken up in near future

So far as male accused was concerned, perusal of facts and judgment led to the conclusion that judgment on the face of it, did not suffer from any legal error

Petition for suspension of sentence was partially allowed to the extent of all three lady accused, their conviction and sentence was suspended till final adjudication of appeal

Prayer of male accused for suspension of sentence was declined.

Principles provided in Ss. 496 & 497, Cr.P.C. have to be borne in mind in granting or refusing bail.

Tentative assessment of evidence on the basis of which finding of guilt was given was not barred for the purpose to consider the application of suspension of sentence under S.426(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused sought suspension of sentence on grounds that co-accused was extended bail and fine was imposed under rule of "alternative punishment"

Validity

Manner in which Trial Court had awarded sentence(s) showed that legal principle was entirely ignored because though Trial Court convicted accused for two different offences yet awarded single sentence which too without specification

Conviction in such a manner could not be said to be within mandatory requirement of S. 367(2), Cr.P.C. and any departure thereto would render such judgment not legal

Sentence awarded by Trial Court could not be stamped to be legal because if accused was found guilty for commission of offence under S.471 P.P.C. then punishment of imprisonment was mandatory/obligatory

High Court declared that in absence thereof, conviction for offence under S. 471 P.P.C. could not be said to be legal

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of S.426. Cr.P.C. can be applied in Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution read with Ss. 426, Cr.P.C. and 561-A Cr.P.C.

Court cannot go into merits of case as this may prejudice outcome of appeal which has to be decided after appellate hearing.

Sentence cannot be suspended under S. 426, Cr.P.C. unless it is shown that conviction is based on no evidence and that there is no ultimate possibility of conviction being sustained.

Accused persons were convicted for financial embezzlement and were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 7 years to 10 years

Accused sought suspension of their sentences as well as grant of bail on grounds that no case was made against them and they were facing hardship

Validity

All accused persons had been awarded sentences ranging from 7 to 10 years which could not be considered short sentences in context of a conviction under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 where maximum sentence was 14 years

Accused persons had only spent approximately 3 months in jail and it could not be said that they had served out a major portion of their sentence, however, due to backlog in hearing appeals, their appeals were nowhere in sight of being heard

High Court, in circumstances, suspended sentence of accused persons as they had been put through agony of prolonged trial, none of them absconded during course of trial and there appeared to be some irregularities during trial

Accused persons were genuinely willing to proceed with their appeals as soon as possible

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused persons was that judgment of Trial Court was prima facie result of misreading and non-reading of available material

Validity

Evidence/material was not appreciated properly while convicting accused persons and acquitting those who otherwise were found guilty in internal inquiry and were charged with main allegations in FIR

High Court suspended sentence as prima facie judgment of conviction opened room for further inquiry because Ss. 497 and 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous to each other

Bail was allowed accordingly.

Sentence awarded to accused was short one and hearing of appeal of accused in wake of huge backlog of cases would take time

High Court suspended sentence awarded to accused till final disposal of his appeal

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court on commission of cyber crime and was sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years along with fine

Accused sought suspension of sentence on the plea of short sentence

Validity

Petitioner was prima facie charged with offences under Ss. 36 & 37 of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 as he allegedly hacked Facebook account of complainant

Accused created two other fake IDs of complainant and started harassing her by way of fabricating her pictures in loose manner and sent same to her, her father, relatives and friends which required appreciation to segregate legal and factual aspects after appreciating evidence during hearing of main appeal as to whether prosecution had substantiated charges against accused under law or not

Only one month had lapsed after conviction of petitioner which did not cross required time frame of six months in cases where 3 years' sentence was awarded

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

One of the petitioners was the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and remaining two were his daughter and son-in-law who were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court

Plea raised by petitioners for suspension of sentence was that Trial Court only convicted them for having assets beyond known sources of income whereas, acquitted on charge of acquiring illegal pecuniary advantages

Validity

Offence under S.9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was a distinct offence and having been specifically charged under S.9(a)(iv) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, Trial Court should have considered whether on same evidence and relating to same property a conviction could be handed down under S.9(a)(v) of National Acocuntability Ordinance, 1999 by assuming through a fiction of law that property in question was acquired through corruption and corrupt practices

Prosecution was required to discharge its obligation establishing four ingredients of offense under S.9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 before onus could be shifted to petitioners

Connection of principal accused was made with acquiring property in question between the year 1993 to year 1996 on presumptions and likewise that children of principal accused were his dependants at the relevant time

Findings which were based on presumptions were result of misreading of evidence

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction suspended sentence awarded by Trial Court

Constituitonal petition was allowed in circumstance.

High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution is not bereft of jurisdiction to suspend sentence handed down under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken while considering suspension of a sentence in context of S.426, Cr.P.C.

Court of appeal is empowered to suspend sentence if on bare perusal of judgment it reflects that appreciation of evidence made by Trial Court was against the settled law

Court of appeal has to confine itself to infirmities in judgment which are apparent and prima facie indicate that conviction and sentence may ultimately not be sustainable.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Accountability Court to imprisonment who sought suspension of sentence on grounds of his medical condition

Validity

Petitioner had a history of various cardiac complications and was a chronic kidney patient and had high blood pressure and diabetes

Medical condition of petitioner was not too serious when his medical condition deteriorated, only then suspension of sentence was sought

All medical reports of petitioner confirmed that he had above history and was also recommended for medical treatment and in such cases, medical reports and opinions of doctors was of utmost importance

None of reports suggested that continued incarceration of petitioner, in any way, was detrimental to his life

High Court declined to suspend sentence of petitioner as petition was without merit

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.