| Case ID |
216a22c0-7e73-4f1c-b45e-382d6ced8285 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Miscellaneous Q.P. No. 96-P of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 19, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 19, 2018 |
| Decision |
In the case before the Peshawar High Court, Justice Rooh-ul-amin Khan meticulously reviewed the petition submitted by Qaiser under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). The petitioner sought the quashing of an order dated 20.10.2017, which had dismissed his application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The court examined the merits of the petition, considering the concurrent sentences awarded to Qaiser in two separate cases under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It was observed that Qaiser's involvement in multiple offenses indicated a pattern of non-reformative behavior, thereby justifying the prosecution's decision to seek consecutive sentences. The High Court concluded that the petition lacked merit as Qaiser failed to demonstrate the necessity for concurrent sentencing, leading to the dismissal of the petition. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision delivered on March 19, 2018, the Peshawar High Court adjudicated the Criminal Miscellaneous Q.P. No. 96-P of 2017, involving petitioner Qaiser and the State. Presided over by Justice Rooh-ul-amin Khan, the case delved into the intricacies of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), specifically Sections 561-A and 371. Qaiser faced dual convictions under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, resulting in separate sentences of five years' rigorous imprisonment and one year's simple imprisonment, respectively. Seeking the benefit of concurrent sentencing under Section 397 Cr.P.C., Qaiser petitioned to have his sentences run concurrently. The petition was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III of Mardan on October 20, 2017, prompting Qaiser to escalate the matter to the High Court. The High Court's deliberation focused on the statutory provisions governing concurrent and consecutive sentencing, analyzing precedents such as Bashir v. State and Ali Akber Shah v. State to ascertain the applicability of discretion under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The court underscored the legislature's intent to ensure that offenders serve their sentences for each grave offense to maintain societal order and justice. However, recognizing the rehabilitative essence of punishment, the court acknowledged that inherent powers exist to modify sentencing orders in exceptional circumstances. Despite this, the judge concluded that Qaiser's pattern of offenses reflected a persistent inclination towards criminality, thereby necessitating consecutive sentencing to uphold the rule of law and societal safety. Key legal arguments revolved around the interpretation of statutory language, the balance between punitive measures and rehabilitation, and the discretion vested in judicial authorities to modify sentencing frameworks. The decision emphasizes the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying legal provisions to ensure justice is served, reinforcing the principles of accountability and public safety. This case serves as a pivotal reference for future litigations concerning sentencing nuances within the framework of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Shahid Zaman,
Arshad Ahmad
|
| Petitioners |
QAISER
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1871,
2018 PLD 121
|
| Other Citations |
Bashir v. State PLD 1991 SC 1145,
Ali Akber Shah v. State PLD 2004 Kar. 589,
Ali Khan Kakar v. Hammad Abbasi 2012 SCMR 334,
Ghulam Farid v. State 2013 SCMR 16 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
561-A,
371
|