Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 90‑R of‑ 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1977, decided on 11th June, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 302/307/34‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.35(2), proviso (a)‑‑Murder‑‑Sentences of imprisonment for life awarded on two counts‑ No direction made for concurrent running of sentences‑‑Consecutive running of such sentences being violative of Proviso (a) to S.35(2), Cr.P. C. omission rectified and sentences ordered to run concurrently.‑ [Sentence].
Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 153 and Criminal Review Petition No. 4‑R of 1985 ref.
Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
While restoring the order of the trial Court, no direction was made for the concurrent running of the sentences of imprisonment for life on two counts under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and the sentences of imprisonment awarded again on two counts under section 307, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. This error crept in because the trial Court had awarded death sentences to the petitioner. The consecutive running of the sentences is violative of Proviso (a) to section 35(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reference in this regard may be made to Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 153. In one other case namely Criminal Review Petition No. 4‑R of 1985, there was also an omission and this Court had ordered for the concurrent running of sentences of imprisonment.
Accordingly, we, in the interest of justice, direct that all these sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.
M. I. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer