' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- The relevant facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was sent up to face trial in case F.I.R. No,110 registered at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan, on 11-3-1998 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. For causing the murders of Mst. Hasna and Mst. Najma Firdous. Vide judgment, dated 23-7-1999, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner on two counts and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation on each count to the legal heirs of the deceased as enjoined by section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No,319-J of 1999. Vide judgment dated 3-3-2004 the learned Division Bench of this Court maintained the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. On two counts.
However, the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment on both counts. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the petitioner and the direction of the learned trial Court under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Was maintained. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought direction that the sentences be run concurrently.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Javed Sheikh v. The State 1985 SCM R 153 as follows:-- "A perusal of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Indicates that it prohibits the giving of consecutive sentence in one trial beyond the period of fourteen years, the maximum sentence, short of death sentence which could be imposed on an offender before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The said provision of section 35, Cr.P.C. Appears to be in consonance with the scheme and intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code that an offender should only suffer the maximum sentence of imprisonment for any heinous crime (as it stood until 1972) which should not exceed fourteen years. Therefore, the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment (which means 25 years' R.I.) plus seven years' R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. Would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provisions of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed for heinous offence shall be exceeded. The difficulty in this case can be overcome if the sentences awarded to the appellant in respect of the two convictions under section 302, P.P.C. And under section 307, P.P.C. In one and the same trial are directed to run concurrently instead of running consecutively."
' The observations made by the apex Court in Javed Shaikh's case (supra) were followed in the case of Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State published at page 1627 of 1986 SCMR.
4. Following the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, we, in the interest of justice, direct that all the sentences of imprisonment inflicted upon the petitioner in the instant case would run concurrently. This order would be deemed to be an integral part of the original judgment.