0
KARACHI, July 26: Jail sentences cannot run concurrently when earlier and subsequent offences committed by a convict are independent and unconnected, the Sindh High Court held on Tuesday.
A convict, Mian Kamran, was convicted under Section 22 (b) of the Emigration Ordinance. He was accused of receiving big amounts from people desirous of going abroad. He could neither send his customers abroad nor refund them their hard-earned savings. Two cases were registered against him and he was sentenced by the special judge (central) for three years’ rigorous imprisonment in each case. Both conviction orders were announced on January 10, 2005. No appeal against the conviction was preferred by the convict.
The convict moved the high court subsequently for concurrent running of his sentences so that his jail term could effectively be reduced to three years.
The petition was contested by federal government counsel S. Mahmood Alam. He said two sentences could not be merged together if the convictions resulted from two independent cases.
Justice Mushir Alam held that under Sections 297 and 359 of the code of criminal procedure, sentences could not be allowed to run concurrently if the offences a person was convicted of were independent and unconnected. Concurrence was permissible under the law only when the offences were ‘akin’ or inseparably interlinked.
IMTIAZ’S PLEA: Four quashment petitions were on Tuesday filed by Advocate Fareed A. Dayo on behalf of former provincial revenue minister Imtiaz Ahmed Shaikh.
The petitioner maintained that the three corruption cases against him proceeding before a provincial anti-corruption court and a kidnapping-for-ransom case being tried by an anti-terrorism court were all false and cooked-up and aimed at his political victimization. The ex-minister came to the high court office personally to swear affidavits annexed to his petitions.
Justice Mushir Alam extended the protective pre-arrest bail granted to Maqbool Ahmed Shaikh, brother of the co-accused and co-accused in two of the four corruption cases. The two brothers and certain officials are accused of fabricating revenue record to illegally acquire government land.
As confirmation of Maqbool Shaikh’s interim bail came up for hearing, the court was informed that the confirmation of the bail extended to Imtiaz Shaikh was fixed for Aug 10 and the two identical matters could appropriately be heard the same day. Adjourning the proceedings, the court fixed Aug 10 as the new date.
