' SAYYED MAZHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Mukhtar Ahmed petitioner through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has sought following relief:- "Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is therefore, Most respectful prayed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner/accused in F.I.R.-212 of 1998, in which the sentence was reduced from 14 years' R.I. To 10-years' R.I. With the grant of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. May very graciously be juxtaposed and placed side by side by subsequent case F.I.R.-394 of 1995, wherein he has been handed down life imprisonment with a fine of Rs,25,000 to run concurrently, as already contained in subsequent judgment and the petitioner/ accused ultimately be given the benefit of sentence undergone by him as a part of concurrent sentence in its entirety, in the interest of justice."
2. Succinctly, the facts arising out from this constitutional petition necessary for deciding the lis in hand are that the petitioner was involved in case F.I.R. No, 212 of 1998 dated 28-10-1998, offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Phularwan, District Sargodah and was tried by Muhammad Asghar Ali Faheem Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha who vide judgment dated 24-9-2001, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer 14 years' R.I. As Taz'ir. The petitioner was also involved in ,case F.I.R. No,294 of 1995, dated 4-12- 1995, offences under sections 302, 394, 460, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhalwal and was tried by Ch. Shahid Naseer, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha who vide judgment dated 29-7-2002, convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him life imprisonment with fine of Rs,25,000. The petitioner was further convicted under section 394 P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer ten years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner has sought for direction that sentence in both the cases be ordered to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the sentences although having an independent footing with all strength of law belong and pertain to one and the same person. It is further stated that in the fitness of things both the sentences may be ordered to run concurrently.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on 2005 YLR 866 and 1986 SCM R 1627.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG has opposed this petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced from both sides. I have also gone through the record, the relevant law on the subject and the dictates of law of this Court as well as that of august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. The sentences albeit having an independent footing with all strength of law, however, these pertain to one and the same person i,e, petitioner. No doubt the intent of legislature to insert and confine the word "concurrent" in Code of Criminal Procedure holds much significance with analogy drawn from section 403, Cr.P.C. As per section 397, Cr.P.C. Read with section 35(2)(a), Cr.P.C, this Court is empowered to order different sentences inflicted upon one accused to run concurrently.
Guidance in this regard is sought from the dictates of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Javed Sheikh v. The State (1985 SCM R 153) and Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State (1986 SCM R 1627).
7. In view of above referred dictates of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the instant constitutional petition is accepted as a consequence whereof relief sought for in the prayer clause is granted.