' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this judgment I intend to dispose of Criminal Revision No,3/2004 and Criminal Revision No,4 of 2004 having commonality of law and facts.
2. By virtue of these criminal revision petitions, the petitioner has challenged the two separate judgments, dated 29-10-2007, passed by Ch. Muhammad Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali whereby the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by Rana Qamar Yaseen Nadeem, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mianwali, vide two separate judgments dated 20-7-2007, was maintained.
3. Briefly put, the facts giving rise to Criminal Revision No,4 of 2004 case were/are that on 11-4-2004 at 10:10 a.m., during the interrogation of a case F.I.R. No,7 dated 13-1-2004 registered with Police Station Saddar Mianwali in respect of offences under sections 392/324/353/186/412, P.P.C, the petitioner-accused, while in police custody made a disclosure and got recovered a Rifle (China Bore) along with 10 live cartridges from a residential room of his house. As the petitioner-accused could neither produce a licence nor any other document to keep the said rifle, a complaint (Exh.PB) was prepared by said Muhammad Asad Khan A.S-I. Which, later on, culminated into registration of a formal F.I.R. No,71 of 2004 (Exh.PB/1), dated 11-4-2004, registered with police station, Saddar Mianwali, in respect of offences under section 7-B of the Surrender of Illict Arms Act, 1991 and 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX) 1965. The recovered rifle, along with 10 live cartridges, was taken into possession vide recovery Memo. (Exh.PC). Muhammad Asad Khan prepared the rough site- plan (Exh.PD/1). Once the charge was framed on 14-12-2006, the prosecution produced as many as four witnesses, and after recording petitioner's statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. Vide judgment dated 20-7- 2007. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to the petitioner.
4. Similarly, the same learned trial Court also tried the petitioner in another similar case F.I.R.
No,70/2004 "registered at Police Station Saddar Mianwali dated 7-4-2004 in respect of offences under section 7-B of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 199i and 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX), 1965. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as in the above case vide its judgment of the same date.
5. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in both the cases by filing two separate appeals through jail before the learned Sessions Judge Mianwali which came up for final hearing before a learned Additional Sessions Judge Mianwali on 29-10-2007 when the same were dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 20-7-2007, in both the cases was maintained. Aggrieved by the said judgments of the Courts below the petitioner has filed these revision petitions.
6. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he would not press these petitions qua the sentence and conviction of the petitioner in both the cases rather he would confine his submissions to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in both the cases be ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel while augmenting his arguments, placed reliance on the cases reported as Zakir Ali v. State (PLD 1977 Kar, 833) and Shamshad Hussain alias Shamla v. The State (2002 M LD 1079 D.B.).
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General failed to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has simply opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner being record holder does not deserve for any leniency.
8. After hearing both the parties on the said point I have observed that in the petitioner was tried in the afore-mentioned two cases, i,e, F.I.Rs, Nos.70/2004 and 71/2004 by one and the same Court.
After completion of the trial of both the cases the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the same day. Even the appeals filed by the present petitioner in the said cases were heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide judgments passed on one and the same day. Further, to examine the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner a reference to section 397, Cr.P.C. Would be beneficial which is reproduced herein below:-- "Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.--When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is sentenced to imprisonment, or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment, or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment, or imprisonment for life to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: ' Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 123 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately."
' A perusal of the provisions of the said section would reveal that where a person 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 case in hand the learned trial Court has not directed that sentence passed in case F.I.R. No,71/2004 is to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in case F.I.R.
No,70/2004, by virtue of provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. The sentence of case F.I.R. No,71/2004 is to commence after the expiry of the sentence awarded in case F.I.R. No,70/2004. Similarly, while deciding the appeals the learned Appellate Court did not consider the said aspect of the case and proceeded to dismiss the appeals in both the said cases on the one and the same day.
9. Now the question is as to whether in revisional jurisdiction this Court can entertain the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner to order to run both the sentences awarded to the petitioner concurrently. This question was considered at length in case of Zahir Ali v. State (PLD 1977 Kar. 833) and it was held that the High Court has power, while hearing revision petition, to order separate sentences awarded in separate trials to run concurrently.
10. At the cost of repetition it is observed that the petitioner was tried on the charge of similar nature by one and the same trial Court. He was convicted and sentenced on one and the same day. Under section 397, Cr.P.C. This Court is competent to order running of sentences concurrently although the trial in both the cases was conducted separately. If any case-law is required in this regard, reference can safely made to cases reported as Shamshad Hussain alias Shamla v. The State (2002 M LD 1079 D.B.).
11. The upshot of the discussion, made above, is that I feel inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed and conviction of the petitioner in both the cases is maintained. However, the sentences awarded to him by the learned trial Court in both the cases shall run concurrently.