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 Petition No. 288 of 1986, decided on 27th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 9‑7‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 35‑‑Sentences‑‑Consecutive‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced under S. 161, P.P.C. and S. 5(2) of Act (II of 1947), with direction that sentences would run consecutively‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that direction of Trial Court as confirmed by High Court that two sentences would run consecutively was not in accordance with law.
Akhtar Hassan Khan v. The State 1974 S C M R 199 and Niaz Ail v. The State P L D 1961 Lah.269.
Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th October, 1986.
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5,000 and to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. He was further convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5(2)(47) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment more. The trial Court's judgment, dated 22‑4‑1986 clearly directed that both the sentences shall run consecutively. The petitioner filed appeal challenging the trial Court's judgment which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
2. We heard the learned counsel on the merits of the case and are not persuaded to grant leave so far as the merit of conviction is concerned. The learned counsel, however. submitted that the direction of the trial Court, as confirmed by the learned High Court, that the two sentences awarded as herein above‑mentioned shall run consecutively is not in accordance with law. Reliance in this connection was placed on the cases of Akhtar Hassan Khan v. The State 1974 S C M R 199 and Niaz Ali v. The State P L D 1961 Lah. 269.
3. The above contention requires examination and leave is accordingly granted on the question of law as indicated above. The appeal shall be heard on the same record.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer