OMAR SIAL, J.---Through this application Jawwad Zaki has prayed that the life sentence awarded to him in the case arising out of FIR No, 153 of 1999 be ordered to run concurrently with the life imprisonment sentence awarded to him in the case arising out of FIR No,126 of 2001.
2. The background to the current application is as follows:
(a) Jawwad Zaki was nominated accused in FIR No, 153 of 1999 registered at the Darakshan police station under sections 302, 392, 397 and 34, P.P.C. on 7.11.1999. The applicant was acquitted by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (South + West), Karachi vide his judgment dated 31-7-2004. An acquittal appeal was filed in this Court (being Criminal Acquittal Appeal No, 461 of 2004) in which this Court on 8-11-2006 overturned the decision of the learned trial court and convicted and sentenced the applicant as follows:
(i) For an offence under section 392 read with section 397, P.P.C.: 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.200,000 fine (or 1 year rigorous imprisonment in default).
(ii) For an offence under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Life imprison ment and compensation of Rs.
150,000 (or 6 months rigorous imprisonment in default).
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was awarded to the applicant and the sentences were to run concurrently .
(b) While the applicant was being tried for the aforementioned crime, he was also nominated and being tried in two other different cases; being, FIR No, 126 of 2001 registered at the Clifton police station under sections 324, 365, 396 and 34, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and FIR No, 252 of 2001 also registered at the Clifton police station under section 13-D of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.
The above two cases were consolidated and heard together by the learned Anti-T errorism Court No, 3 at Karachi, which on victed and sentenced the applicant as follows:
(i) For an offence under section 396, P.P.C.: Death penalty and a fine of Rs. 200,000 (or 2 years rigorous imprisonment in default).
(ii) For an offence under section 324, P.P.C.: 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 (or 1 year rigorous imprisonment in default).
(iii) For an offence under section 13-D of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965: 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 (or rigorous imprisonment of one year in default).
The Applicant appealed the above convictions and sentences in this court (throug h Special A.T.A. No, 22 of 2002 and 23 of 2003). The confirmation of death sentence was also heard (Confirmation Case No, 9 of 2002). This Court vide its judgment dated 31-10-2003 confirmed the death sentence of the applicant and altered the sentence awarded to him by the trial court as follows: (i)' Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under section 7(iii) of the PT A 1997 read with section 34, P .P.C.'
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under section 365, P .P.C. read with section 34, P .P.C.
(iii) Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000 (or 1 year rigorous imprisonment in default) for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was awarded to the applicant and the sentences were to run concurrently .
3. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which on 2-3-2015 was pleased to dismiss the appeals however converted the death penalty td life imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also ordered that the benefit of section 382-B, Cr .P.C. be awarded to the applicant and the sentences were to run concurrently .
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional P.G. and have examined the record with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel has only agitated one issue i.e. the two life sentences awarded to him in two different cases by two different courts should be ordered to run concurrently and not consecutively . He further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not informed, when it passed its judgment on 2.3.2015 that the applicant was already sentenced to life imprisonment in another case. According to him, had the Hon'ble Supreme Court been made aware by the learned counsel or the learned Additional Prosecutor General about the situation he had no doubt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court would have taken a lenient view. In further support of his contention he has relied heavily on a judgment of the apex court in Rahib Ali v. The State (2018 SCMR 418 ).
6. In the aforementioned case, Rahib Ali had impugned an order of the High Court, whereby his application under section 397 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seeking an order to compute two conviction sentences awarded in two different set of proceedings by two different courts to run concurrently , was declined on the ground, inter alia, that in one set of proceedings Supreme Court while enhancing the sentence from 14 years to life had not ordered that the sentence in both the cases to run concu rrently , therefore, it is not open for the High Court to order concurrent running of sentences in two different set of proceedings. The situation in the case before us is similar except for the fact that in the present case the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the applicant from death to life imprisonment.
7. The apex court observed that: In cases where the subsequent conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court and for that matter the Appellate and or Revisional Court, is silent as to consolidation of two or more sentences or otherwise against a convict already undergoing a sentence; than in appropriate cases inherent jurisdict ion of the High Court in terms of section 561-A, Cr .P.C. read with 397, Cr .P.C. could always be invoked.
8. It went on to observe that: In view of the discussion made above, position that emerges is that the Courts in Pakistan generally take charitable view in the matter of sentences affecting deprivation of life or liberty of a person and unless some aggravating circumstances do not permit so, liberally exercise enabling power under section 35 and B section 397, Cr.P.C. respectively to order concurrent running of sentence in one trial and so also consolidation of earlier sentence while handing down sentence of imprisonment in a subsequent trial.
Taking stock of the legal position as noted above, examining the case in hand, in the first mentioned crime, the petitioner was convicted for life sentence and in the second mentioned case his 14 years' imprisonment sentence was enhanced by this Court to life imprisonment. Treating and computing life sentences in two different trials/transactions to run consecutively or second sentence after the exhaustion of the first mentioned life sentence would be in negation of section 57 of P.P.C., as amended, which prescribes that sentence of imprisonment for life corresponds to maximum imprisonment for 25 years and in any case cannot be less than 15 years (per Rule 140 of the Pakistan Prison Rules 1978); after earning remissions as may be extended by the executive functionaries from time to time but subject to section 401, Cr .P.C., Rule 216 and Rule 218 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.
9. In the present case too, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not informed about the earlier life sentence of the applicant. No extenuating circumstances have been pleaded by the learned Addl. P.G. to show that a charitable view must not be taken in favour of the applicant and that the sentences should run consecutively .
10. Being guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Rahib case, we order that the two life sentences awarded to the applicant in the cases arising out of FIR No,153/1999 and FIR No,126/2001 run concurrently . This application has been filed in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,461 of 2004, which has already been disposed of vide judgment dated 8.11.2006. accordingly , this application is converted into a criminal miscellaneous application and allowed. Of fice is directed to assign it a number and make a separate file.