SH. KHIZAR HAYAT, J.--- This application under section 561-A. Cr.P.C., has been filed praying that sentences of the applicants recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, vide his order, dated 2-11-1981 may be directed to run concurrently, which are as under:--
(i) Under section 302/149, P.P.C. (2 counts)Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to suffer further 6 months' R.I., and Rs.2,000 to be paid as compensation to the heirs of deceased, each, on each count.
(ii)Under section 324/149, P.P.C.One year's R.I., and a fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof to suffer 3 months' R.I. each.
(iii) Under section 148, P.P.C.2 years' R.I. each.
' It may be mentinod that the applicants filed appeal in the High Court against their above mentioned convictions and sentences (CrA.No.35/1982) which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgment, dated 21-4-1985, and similarly their Petition for Leave to Appeal filed in the Supreme Court (Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.267 of 1985) was dismissed vide order, dated 12-1-1987. Allah Bakhsh, a co-accused of the applicants, who was sentenced to death, has since been executed and the applicants are presently undergoing their sentences of imprisonment in New Central Jail, Multan.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the trial Court having not directed the sentence of applicants to run concurrently committed an illegality because in the absence of such an order the applicants ought to suffer imprisonment for a span of more than 25 years which clearly offends against proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad Tariq's case 1987 MLD 1242 decided by Full Bench of this Court and it is urged that although the applicant's appeal in the High Court and the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court have failed yet this Court has the authority to correct the statutory mistake which has crept in the judgment of the trial Court.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General relying on Muhammad Khan's case PLD 1986 Lah. 294 decided by the same Full Bench of this Court, submitted that this Court has no powers to make the direction sought for as it would amount to altering its judgment, which is prohibited by section 369, Cr.P.C.
3. It is true that proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C., prohibits the award of consecutive sentences of imprisonment in one trial exceeding period of 25 years as a whole. But the question here is, whether this Court can legally make the correction sought for at this stage, without violating section 369, Cr.P.C., which bars the alteration on the review of judgment after so many years of its having been signed and announced, and particularly after leave to appeal against that judgment had been refused by the Supreme Court?
4. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the case- law cited at the Bar, we think that the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court have merged into the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 12-1-1987, whereby leave to appeal had been refused to the applicants, therefore, any order by this Court directing the sentences to run concurrently at this stage would amount to altering the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court which is neither permissible nor proper as has been held by Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Khan's case (supra). The case of Muhammad Tariq relied upon by applicant's learned counsel, proceeds on materially different facts. There, each petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on more than one count; the death sentence was, by the order of the President in some cases and the order of the Governor in others, commuted to life imprisonment, and as there was no order for the sentences to run concurrently, they were treated as consecutive sentences contrary to the provisions of section 35(2), Cr.P.C. In this situation as fresh orders had been passed by the head of the Province/State, therefore, the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction rectified the mistake. But in the instant case, this is not the position.
Therefore, this petition being without merit is hereby dismissed.