Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 11th June 1969, in Criminal Reference No. 69 of 1968/Criminal Revision No. 769 of 1968).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

S. 439(1)‑Revision-Sentence‑Enhancement‑ Reference by Sessions Judge recommending for setting aside sentence under S. 324, P. P. C. and ordering fresh trial under S. 326, P. P. C.‑High Court maintaining conviction under S. 324, P. P. C. but enhancing sentence of Rs. 30 fine to 3 year's R. L‑Sentence though maximum, yet, held, neither illegal nor inappropriate in circumstances of case‑Supreme Court, held further, does not interfere with a legal sentence.

' The only point urged on accused petitioner's behalf is that although the High Court has only purported to enhance the sentence under section 324, P. P. C., it has actually imposed a sentence which was appropriate in the case of conviction under section 326, P. P. C.

Held : A sentence of 3 years under section 324, P. P. C. is the maximum sentence that can be awarded, but it is certainly not the maximum sentence under section 326, P. P. C. The maximum sentence provided for the latter offence is transportation for life. It cannot, therefore, be said that the High Court has really imposed a sentence for a higher offence. The sentence imposed under sec tion 324 is a legal sentence, even though it might be the maximum sentence. No question of principle is involved here. The sentence awarded appears to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. This petition is accordingly, dismissed, as the Supreme Court does not interfere with a legal sentence.

Aminul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th May 1970.

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑

The petitioner was convicted under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 only, by a Magistrate of the First Class at Sadar (South) Comilla. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Comilla, made a reference to the High Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pointing out that the petitioner was charged under section 326 of the Penal Code for having caused grievous injury to one, Kalimuddin, and also an incised injury to one, Kazrul Islam by dao blows. As a result of these Kalimuddin became senseless and was removed to hospital where he was kept confined as an indoor patient for more than a month. The Magistrate concerned examined Kalimuddin and only three other witnesses but before examining Nazrul Islam and the medical officer concerned framed a charge under section 324 and convicted the petitioner as aforesaid. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge thought that this was a fit case where the order of the Magistrate should be set aside and a fresh trial ordered under section 326, P. P. C.

The High Court, however, issued a rule only for enhancement of the sentence under section 324, P. P. C., and after hearing the petitioner enhanced his sentence by substituting the original sentence for a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.

The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the only point urged on his behalf is that although the High Court has only purported to enhance his sentence under section 324, P. P. C., it has actually imposed a sentence which was appropriate in the case of conviction under section 326, P. P. C. A sentence of 3 years under section 324, P. P. C. is the maximum sentence that can be awarded, but it is certainly not the maximum sentence under section 326, P. P. C. The maximum sentence provided for the latter offence is transportation for life. It cannot, therefore, be said that the High Court has really imposed a sentence for a higher offence.

The sentence imposed under section 324 is a legal sentence, even though it might be the maximum sentence. No question of principle is involved here. The sentence awarded appears to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed, as this Court does not interfere with a legal sentence.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.