' Habib-ur-Rehman, the present petitioner was tried for murder of one Riaz Ahmad and sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, by his judgment, dated 29-7-1987.
He was also required to pay fine of Rs,20,000 payable as compensation to the heirs of the deceased failing which he was to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal this Court by its judgment, dated 12-6-1990, converted the sentence of death, to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. These sentences were also maintained by the Supreme Court in appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was also tried in three cases registered under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and was convicted and sentenced as under:---
(i) Case registered vide F.I.R. No,278 of 1986, date ; 18-11-1986 under sections 17. 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, decided on 8-4-1989--Sentenced three years' rigorous imprisonment on two counts. Sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently; .(ii) case registered vide F.1. R. No,214 of 1985, dated 8-7-1985, under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 6 of the Passports Act, 1974, decided on 29-3-1989--- Sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently; and
(iii) case registered vide F.I.R. No,48 of 1988, dated 20-7-1988, under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, decided on 20-1-1993--- Sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 22 ibid.
3. The petitioner is stated to have undergone the sentence of imprisonment for life but has not been released as he is required to undergo the sentences awarded under the aforesaid three cases and according to jail authorities these sentences are to run consecutively. The wife of the petitioner, thus, moved to the Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi, seeking directions that the said sentences of the petitioner should run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life already undergone by him. This application did not find favour with the learned Special Judge who turned down the same vide his order, dated 28-7-1998, whereupon the petitioner has moved the instant petition under section 561-A of the Code-of Criminal Procedure for the similar relief praying that the aforesaid sentences of imprisonment be directed to run concurrently along with imprisonment for life awarded in the murder of Riaz Ahmad.
4. Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel, representing the petitioner relying upon Altaf Hussain v. The State (1987 PCr.0 2169) contended that imprisonment for life means life imprisonment only once and any other sentence exceeding the life imprisonment cannot be awarded. The petition was however, vehemently opposed on behalf of the State, Malik Muhammad Kabir, the learned Assistant Advocate-General referred to Bashir and 3 others v. The State (PLO 1991 SC 1145) wherein the apex Court has in detail dealt with similar cases particularly involving the interpretation of section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the Court in the said case is reproduced "The Court is unanimously of the view that the judgments of this Court in Javed Shaikh v. The State (1985 SCM R 153), Juma Khan wed another v. The State (1986 SCM R 1373), Muhammad Ittefaq v.. The State (1986 scrvirt 1627) and Khan Zaman and others v. The State (1987 SCM R 1382) require review and are hereby reviewed to hold that proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to cases of sentence awarded by the Sessions Court in original trial. It does not, therefore, apply to cases of imprisonment for life imposed in murder trial.
' The Court by majority of opinion holds that---
(i) the sentence of life imprisonment, unless ordered to run concurrently under subsection (1) of section 35, Cr P C . Will run consecutively in view of its quantification in terms of years under section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code; and
(ii) the executive order of commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment takes effect forthwith making such sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence ordered by the Court."
5. In the instant case, the petitioner was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder of one Riaz Ahmed and sentenced to death and fine. In appeal the sentence of death was converted by the High Court to imprisonment for life. The sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in three other cases under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and the Passports Act, 1974, have no nexus with the aforesaid murder case. The offences therein were committed at different occasions. The trials were held at different times and the cases were decided on different dates. In other words, these offences were not committed in one transaction nor there was any consolidated' trial. In the circumstances, the trial Court was not required to pass order that the sentences in later cases be run concurrently. In Peter Erastos and others v. The State (1992 M LD 193) it was held by this Court that section 397, Cr.P.C., itself shows that the ordinary rule is that when a person is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is consequently sentenced to another term of imprisonment, such imprisonment would commence at the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed upon him in the previous case.. Likewise, in Abdul Hamid v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 568) it was held as under:- "The rule laid down in section 397, Cr.P.C., is that a sentence is to commence on the expiration of a sentence to which a person has been sentenced previously, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Consecutive sentences is, therefore, the general rule while concurrent sentences is only an exception. Depending on the particular circumstances of a case, concurrent sentences, may be awarded where the two offences are akin and intimately connected with each other, but not where there is no connection between the two. In the present case the two offences are not connected. They took place at different times and two different persons were killed at two different places and there was no connection of any sort between the two. Under these circumstances, the sentence in this case cannot be justifiably ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in the other case."
6. In view of the above, there is no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Special Judge (Central) declining to order the sentences under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and the Passports Act, 1974, to run concurrently along with the sentence awarded in a murder case. In the interest of justice, however, the petitioner is given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., in all the three cases referred to above in the term of his imprisonment. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.