The sentence of Javed Iqbal respondent No.1 was suspended by this Court on 21-1-1991 on the ground that within the statutory period his appeal was not decided by this Court. Nazar Muhammad complainant has moved this application praying for the cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent. Learned counsel contends that the complainant has also filed Crl. Revision No.518/87 in which notice has been issued to the respondent on 30-4-1988. According to the learned counsel the matter in hand had become a D.B. Matter and as such it was to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.
2. Mr. Jari Ullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that his client cannot be made to suffer on account of a fault on the part of the office and that he did not know that notice had already been issued to him. It is true that Mr. Jari Ullah Khan did not know that notice had been issued to respondent No.1 in the revision for enhancement of his sentence. In my view under section 426, Cr.P.C. Sentence of respondent No.1 can alone be suspended by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court in the case as per Rule 2, Chapter 3, Part A of the Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders is a Division Bench of this Court. Section 426(1), Cr.P.C. Demonstrates that pending appeal the execution of sentence can be suspended by the Appellate Court. In this view of the matter I was not the Appellate Court in the case in hand and as such I had no power to suspend the sentence of respondent No.1. Resultantly the order dated 21-1-1991 shall be recalled and the application of the respondent/appellant shall be deemed to be pending. Office is directed to place the matter before the learned Division Bench after obtaining the appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as early as possible. The respondent shall be taken into custody by the concerned Agency. C.M. No.1/91 accordingly stands disposed of.