' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Sadar Din and Muhammad Shehzad appellants and their co-convict namely Khurram Shehzad were convicted for an offence under section 393, P.P.0 read with section 34, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 30-5-2002 rendered by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years each and a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. They were also convicted for an offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 each to the injured victim by way of Daman. They were further convicted for an offence under section 353, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Both the appellants and their co-convict were also convicted by the learned trial Court for an offence under section 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 34, P.P.C.
And were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years each and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. The learned trial Court had ordered that the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants and their co-convict for offences under section 393, P.P.C., section 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Would run concurrently to each other whereas the sentences passed against them for an offence under section 353, P.P.C. Would run consecutively with the other sentences. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them. Sadar Din appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through Criminal Appeal No.1959 of 2002 whereas Muhammad Shehzad appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 379-J of 2003 in that. Regard. I have heard both these appeals together and I propose to decide the same together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. The allegation against the appellants and their co-convict is that they had committed a robbery at a General Store at about 4-15 p.m. On 1-9-2001 whereafter the matter was reported to the police on telephone and a police party had chased the appellants and their co-convict and as a result of the said chase firing was exchanged and Muhammad Shehzad appellant was apprehended by the police whereas Sadar Din appellant and Khurram Shehzad co-convict had managed to slip away.
F.I.R. No.470 of 2001 was registered in respect of the said incident at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad for offences under sections 392/353/ 324/186/34, P.P.C. After the arrest of the appellants and their co-convict in connection with this criminal case they were put to trial and at the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against them to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, they were convicted and sentenced by it as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeals before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
4. At the outset the learned counsel for both the appellants have submitted that they do not challenge the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court and they only pray that all the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants by the learned trial Court may be ordered to run concurrently to each other. The learned counsel for the State has maintained that as long as the convictions and sentences of the appellants are not disturbed he has nothing much to say on the matter of concurrent or consecutive running of the appellants' sentences of imprisonment as the said aspect of the matter lies within the discretion of this Court.
5. In the context of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants it has been noticed by me that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 1-9-2001 and ever since their arrest in connection with this case both the appellants are in custody and they have never been admitted to bail at any stage of this case. It has curiously been noticed by me that the learned trial Court had ordered that the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants in respect of offences under section 393, P.P.C., section 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Would run concurrently to each other whereas the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant for an offence under section 353, P.P.C. Would run consecutively but the learned trial Court had failed to record any particular reason for consecutive running of the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants for an offence under section 353, P.P.C.
All the offence in this case had been committed by the appellants in the same transaction. In the peculiar circumstances of this case it has appeared to me to be just and fair if all the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants for all the offences are ordered to run concurrently to each other.
6. For what has been observed above both the above mentioned appeals are dismissed, the convictions and sentences of both the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained with the modification that all the sentences of imprisonment passed against both the appellants shall run concurrently to each other. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has already been extended to the appellants by the learned trial Court. Both the appeals are disposed of in these terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.