1. FAISAL ARAB, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek concurrent running of their sentences awarded to them in three different cases by three different Courts.
2. ' Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that three separate F.I.Rs, at different point in time were lodged wherein it was stated that the present petitioners misappropriated stocks of grain issued to them from Government godown worth millions of rupees for delivery at three different places. On account of such misappropriations committed at three different points in time, the petitioners were prosecuted under each of the three F.I.Rs in three different Courts.
3. ' In the first case the petitioners were convicted by Judicial Magistrate. Kotdiji in Crime No,158 of 1998 registered with police station Kotdiji. On 28-10-2000, the petitioners were awarded three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs,5,000 each and in case fine is not paid the petitioners were to undergo further imprisonment for additional three months. The petitioners preferred appeal. In appeal, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide his judgment dated 28-4-2004 maintained the conviction awarded by the trial Court. No further remedy was preferred.
4. ' In the second case the petitioners were convicted by Judicial Magistrate, Gambat in Crime No,106 of 1998 registered with police station Ranipur. They were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment on 29-12-2003 by Judicial Magistrate Gambat. The petitioners preferred appeal before Sessions Court, Gambat. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat vide his judgment dated 1-12- 2005 maintained the conviction of the trial Court. No further remedy was preferred.
5. ' In the third case the petitioners were convicted by Judicial Magistrate. Khairpur on 31-10-2005 in Crime No,143 of 1998 registered with police station Mirwah. They were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs,5,000 each and in case fine was not paid, the petitioners were to undergo additional imprisonment for one year. No appeal was preferred.
6. ' All the three convictions attained finality and the matter was not agitated further. It was only through an application dated 25-1-2006, which was converted into present constitutional petition that the petitioners seek the relief of concurrent running of their sentences awarded to them in the above mentioned three cases.
7. ' The relevant provision with regard to concurrent running of sentences is section 397. This section provides that when a person is sentenced at a time when he is already undergoing imprisonment, then his subsequent sentence is to commence upon the expiration of the earlier sentence unless the Court has specifically given directions that subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
8. ' In the present case, after being sentenced by trail Court in one case or dismissal of their appeal by the Sessions Court in the two remaining cases, the petitioners did not prefer any further remedy. In such a situation the question which arises is whether the convicted persons in constitutional petition can seek directions from this Court that the three sentences awarded to them to run concurrently. In this regard it would be worthwhile to examine some of the judgments delivered on the point in issue.
9. ' In the case of Mian Gulzar Muhammad v. Crown reported in PLD 1950 Lahore 497 it was held: "I hold that the accused was undergoing his first sentence when the second and third sentences were pronounced on him, and that consequently, where there is no order making them concurrent, they will be undergone consecutively. The petition is dismissed. "
10. In the case of Zakir Ali v. The State reported in PLD 1977 Karachi 833 it was held as under:-- "According to section 397, P.P.C. Where person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment for another offence, the latter sentence is to commence after the expiration of the former sentence. Unless the Court otherwise directs. Since in the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has not directed that the sentence is to run concurrent with the sentence awarded in the injury case, by virtue of the provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C, the sentence in this case is to commence after the expiry of the sentence in the injury case."
11. ' In the case of Muhammad Khan reported in PLD 1986 Lahore 294 it was held as follows: "We, therefore, hold that the petitioner was undergoing his first sentence when the second, third and fourth were pronounced on him and that secondly, where there is no order making them concurrent, they will be undergoing consecutively. If it is held that the words "undergoing a sentence" mean that the sentence is being actually and -physically undergone, the Courts would be driven to the adoption of farcical devices".
12. ' In the case of Abdul Hamid v. The State reported in 1990 PCr.LJ 568 it was held as follows: "The rule laid down in section 397, Cr.P.C. Is that a sentence is to commence on the expiration of a sentence to which a person has been sentenced previously, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous-sentence. Consecutive sentences is, therefore, the general rule while concurrent sentences is only an exception. Depending on the particular circumstances of a case, concurrent sentences may be awarded where the two offences are akin and intimately connected with each other, but not where there is no connection between the two. In the present case the two offences are not connected. They took place at different times and two different persons were killed at two different places and there was no connection of any sort between the two. Under these circumstances the sentence in this case cannot be justifiably ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in the other case."
13. ' Finally, in the case of Muhammad Yagoob Tahir v. Superintendent, District Jail Rawalpindi reported in PLJ 1978 Lahore 531, it was observed at page 553 as under: "In so far as the application of section 397, Cr.P.0 to the present case is concerned, it is obvious that the said section is not available. The provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked by a Court awarding second sentence or a Court hearing an appeal and/or a revision arising out of a second conviction.
14. ' As already indicated there was no appeal or revision against the order passed in the case of absconcion. A proceeding under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be the substitute for an appeal or revision and much less can it bypass the provisions regarding the same.
15. ' Coming to the facts of the present case, after being sentenced in three cases the petitioners were left with the remedy to file appeal in one case and revision against appellate orders in two cases before the higher legal forum. However, the petitioners failed to avail such remedy. On account of such failure, all subsequent sentences, none of which were ordered to run concurrently attained finality and in term of section 397 Cr.P.C. All the three sentences if not ordered to run concurrently, have to run consecutively.
16. Thus the relief of seeking concurrent running of subsequent sentences ought to be sought either before the Court which passed subsequent sentence or if denied by such Court, ought to be sought before higher forum where appeal or revision lies. Having not preferred the remedy before higher forum and the sentences awarded in three cases having attained finality, the petitioners now in collateral proceedings cannot agitate the matter. This is for the simple reason that finality is attached to all legal decisions if not reversed or modified by higher forum provided under the law.
17. In such a situation a party to a case cannot seek any relief through collateral proceedings, which was either denied to him or the party itself failed to seek such relief by impugning the order of the Court before the higher legal forum in the same hierarchy. Thus where no appeal or revision was preferred, the relief for seeking concurrent running of the subsequent sentences cannot be sought in any collateral proceedings as no other proceedings can be the substitute for an appeal or revision.
18. ' Another legal principle is also attracted to the present case, which warrant denial of the relief sought by the petitioners.
19. ' From the facts of all the three cases it is evident that though the nature of offences is the same i,e, misappropriation of government stocks of grain, but all the three offences cannot be said to be intimately connected with each other in order to describe them as part of a series of offences committed in the course of achieving a common objective. All the three offences were committed in order to achieve three separate objectives independent of each other i,e, misappropriation of stocks of food grain dispatched for three different places at three different points in time. As each of the three offences were committed to achieve three separate objectives though identical in nature and therefore, all three offences cannot be regarded as akin or intimately connected with each other. The discretion of the Court to direct running of subsequent sentence concurrently with earlier sentence is exercised not in a mechanical manner and is also not applied as a rule but only as an exception and only when the Court finds that all offences were committed in the course of realization of a common objective which a person wants to achieve at a particular point in time.
20. Where a person commits a series of different offences to achieve his common objective then all offences committed in achieving such common objective are regarded as akin to each other or are intimately connected with each other. For example a person who plans to rob a bank, first disconnects electricity and telephone connections of the bank, kills its security guard, trespasses into the building, breaks the locker room and commits robbery and then abducts some of the bank officials in order to use them as human shields. From the commission of all such acts it can be seen that in order to achieve his main objective of robbing a bank, he has committed a series of offences. In such a case the Court awarding sentence for one of such offences can order that sentence awarded earlier for one of the series of such offences committed by the accused to run concurrently. In the present case all three offences though identical in nature were committed with distinct and separate criminal objectives sought to be achieved at three different points in time and therefore the justification to seek concurrent running of all the three sentences did not arise at all in the first place. In such circumstances, the Courts below did not had the discretion to order concurrent running of subsequent sentences had such relief been sought from them at the appropriate time.
21. ' In view of the above discussion, this Court has come to the conclusion that neither the relief of concurrent running of the sentences can be sought in collateral proceedings nor such relief was even available to the petitioners in the first place as all the three offences were distinct and separate and not part of the series of offences committed in the course of achieving a common objective. This petition therefore is dismissed.