IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2017 
Against the judgment dated 14.10.2016 passed 
by Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Circuit, in Crl. 
Misc. Application No.D-430 of 2015 
 
Rahib Ali   
Petitioner (s) 
VERSUS 
 
The State 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
: Mr. Amjad Ali Sahito, ASC 
Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, AOR 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s)  
: Mr. Abdullah Rajput, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 30.10.2017 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Mushir 
Alam, 
J.- 
Rahib 
Ali, 
convict/petitioner 
has 
impugned the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by learned bench 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, which application was declined on the ground, inter alia, 
that in one set of proceedings Supreme Court while enhancing the 
sentence from 14 years to life did not ordered the sentence in both the 
cases to run concurrently, therefore, it is not open for the High Court to 
order concurrent running of sentences in two different set of proceedings.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is now 
settled position in law that Courts ordinarily order running of two 
separate convictions recorded in two different set of trials by two different 
courts to be run concurrently, irrespective whether such conviction has 
been maintained, enhanced or modified by the appellate and or revisional 
Courts as the case may be, in any manner, whatsoever. Learned 
Additional Advocate General, in attendance concedes to such legal 
position. 
3. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well 
as learned Advocate General and perused the record. 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
2
4. 
 
In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel 
convictions recorded against the appellant in two separate trials are as 
follows:- 
 
“i. 
Crime 
Nos.23/1999, 
P.S. 
Tando 
Yousuf 
on 
24.7.1999 & 62/1999 P.S. B-Section Latifabad on 
28.11.1999 resulting in special case No.24/2000, 
U/s. 365-A PPC, 7-B ATA & 20 H.Ord., wherein he 
was found guilty alongwith his accomplice under 
section 6(2)(e) Anti-Terrorism Act and was ordered to 
imprisonment for life and forfeiture of their 
properties alongwith the offence under section 392 
PPC 
and 
further 
sentenced 
to 
undergo 
Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.50,000/- 
each and one year imprisonment more in case of 
default in payment of fine. Appeals bearing Nos.98, 
99 & 100/2001 alongwith Jail Appeal No.9 of 2002 
were preferred wherein the judgment of the trial 
Court was maintained by the Sindh High Court. The 
Appellant preferred Cr. As. No.418 & 419 of 2002, 
before this Court, resulted in extension of benefit 
U/s 382-B Cr.P.C. for sentence awarded under 
Sec.7 of the ATA & 392 of PPC to be run 
concurrently vide judgment dated 21.10.2011.  
 
ii. 
Crime No.01/2000, P.S. Bhatti Nagar U/s 365-A 
PPC & U/s 7(b) ATA 1997 in criminal case 
No.25/2002, wherein he alongwith his accomplices 
was convicted for 14 years and fine of Rs.100,000/- 
each and in default an imprisonment of one year. 
Appeals bearing Nos.11 & 12 of 2002 were preferred 
to the High Court by the accused wherein the 
sentences were maintained. On approach to the 
Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of 
Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2002 it was held that 
legal sentence under Section 365-A PPC, could not 
be less than life, which was accordingly enhanced to 
life imprisonment alongwith forfeiture of property, 
benefit U/s 382-B Cr.P.C. for sentences awarded 
under Sec.7 of the ATA & 392 of PPC was however 
given to be run concurrently vide judgment dated 
02.02.2012      
5. 
 
As noted in the first mentioned Crime No.23/1999 registered  
at Police Station Tando Yousuf on 24.7.1999 and Crime No. 62/1999 
registered at  Police Station ‘B’ Section, Latifabad on 28.11.1999 
converted  into Special Case No.24/2000 dated 24.11.2001, wherein 
conviction and sentence was handed down by the learned Judge Anti 
Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, under section 365-A PPC read with section 
7-B ATA and section 20 Hadood Ordinance, to imprisonment for life, 
which conviction was maintained upto this Court in Criminal Appeals 
No.418 and 419 of 2002, benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was also 
extended and for the sentence awarded under section 7 of the ATA and 
section 392 PPC  both were ordered to run concurrently.  In instant 
matter the Petitioner who faced trial in another crime No.1/2000 
registered at Police Station Bhitai Nagar, Hyderabad, tried as Special 
Case No.24 and 25/2000 respectively, wherein he was sentenced to 14 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
3
years, which was maintained by the High Court, when it came up for 
consideration in Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2002, before this Court, it 
was noted that 14 years sentence for kidnapping for ransom recorded by 
the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not a legal sentence, as 
the sentence for an offence under section 365-A PPC is either “death or 
imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property.” Consequently this court 
while 
affirming 
the 
conviction 
enhanced 
the 
sentence 
to 
life 
imprisonment alongwith forfeiture of properties and maintained amount 
of fine as provided for under the charging provision, this Court also 
ordered running of all the sentences awarded by the trial court, at one 
trial was ordered to run concurrently, which direction was in consonance 
with section 35 of the Cr.P.C 
6. 
 
 It seems that neither at the time of conviction in subsequent 
trial in criminal case No.25/2002 by the trial Court, nor at the time 
when his Criminal Appeals No.11 and 12 of 2002 were heard and 
decided on 21.5.2002 by the High Court and nor, at the time of hearing 
of Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2002 before this Court the petitioner herein 
and the Prosecutor General did not laid any information that the 
petitioner is already serving out life sentence awarded earlier in special 
case No.24/2000. Apparently, for this reason no direction in the nature 
of consolidation of sentences handed down in two separate trials was 
made. 
7. 
 
In instant case after the conviction in second trial was 
maintained by this court, jail authority informed the Petitioner that life 
sentences awarded in two cases would run consecutively as there is no 
direction by the court to treat two separate life sentences to run 
concurrently, which mean that he would under go life sentence twice 
successively or one after the other, which prompted him to make 
application to the High Court under section 397 Cr.P.C read with Section 
561-A Cr.P.C, seeking direction to treat life sentences awarded in two 
separate trial to run concurrently. The Application was dismissed by the 
High Court vide impugned order on the ground inter-alia “that the final 
convictions are based upon order/s as passed by the Honourable Supreme 
Court wherein one was enhanced. Without going into question of non 
disclosure of the earlier punishment reasons of which other than oversight 
may have been presented being not to disclose the chequered history of 
the accused in order to avoid any negative effect. We are of the 
understanding that it is not open for this court to order for concurrent 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
4
running of both the sentences finally passed by the Hon’able Supreme 
Court of Pakistan and in the circumstances this application is dismissed”. 
8. 
 
The question before us is that when sentence for 
imprisonment life or lesser sentence, in a subsequent trial is maintained 
or modified by the appellate or revisional Court, whether the Court seized 
of the subsequent trial or appeal arising there from after handing down 
conviction could order clubbing of two sentences one inflicted and 
undergoing in earlier trial with that inflicted in subsequent trial?  
Generally a sentence of imprisonment (subject to sections 381, 401 and 
426-Cr.P.C) comes into effect the moment it is passed and unless the 
trial, appellate or revisional Court as the case may be orders consolidated 
computation of several conviction sentences passed in singular trail, the 
sentences run in a row, successively one after the other, however, section 
35 of the Cr.P.C enables the trial and or higher Courts of appeal to order 
consolidation of several imprisonment sentences in the same trial  
9. 
 
However, where an offender is serving out a substantive 
sentence of imprisonment is also subsequently convicted for any other 
offence(s) in another trial(s); per section 397 Cr.P.C later sentence(s) for 
imprisonment would generally commence at the expiration of earlier 
sentence(s) or putting it in other words sentences in several trial awarded 
to an offender/convict in successive trials would run back to back one 
after the expiration of other, unless the court directs that the subsequent 
sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in earlier trial. 
Exception to this rule is in where the offender is serving out sentence of 
imprisonment in lieu or in default of payment of fine. Neither the trial 
nor the appellate or revisional courts have any jurisdiction to order 
consolidation of multiple sentences in lieu of fine. Multiple sentences of 
fine in a trial in lieu of fine in same or different cases would run 
successively (see section 64 to 70 PPC).  
10. 
 
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 jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of 
section 561-A Cr.P.C read with 397 Cr.P.C could always be invoked.  In 
the case of Ammavasai Vs. Inispector of Police, 2000(9) SCC 759 Supreme 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
5
Court India also held that consolidation of sentences against the same 
accused in various cases is permissible. 
11. 
 
Present controversy is confined only to the extent of power of 
the courts to order concurrent running of multiple sentences passed in 
one and or more than one trial(s).  Jurisdiction of the Courts to order 
multiple sentences in one trial to run concurrently or otherwise came up 
for consideration in number of cases including, Ghulam Haider versus 
The State (1984 SCMR 887), in said case accused was awarded death 
sentence under section 302 PPC on three Counts, death sentence was 
converted into for life on three count and ordered to be run concurrently 
by this court. In the case of Javail Shaikh v. the State (1985 SCMR 153) 
life sentence under Section 302 PPC and, 7 years under section 307 PPC 
were ordered to run concurrently. In Juma Khan and another versus The 
State (1986 SCMR 1573), convicts were sentenced to death on two 
count by the trial court, High Court maintained the conviction but 
reduced the sentence to life on each count without specifying whether 
the sentence would run consecutively or concurrently. Jail petition was 
also dismissed by this court. Convicts, on being informed by the jail 
authority that they would have to undergo two terms of 25 years each 
one after the other; moved High Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C to 
seek clarification on such count. The application was dismissed on the 
ground, inter-alia, that it cannot review the conviction as it was 
maintained by Supreme Court. This is exactly what has happened in the 
case in hand. This court when approached by the convicts, (relying on 
the case of Javaid Shaikh, supra) held that under section 35 of the 
Cr.P.C the total period of imprisonment at one trial cannot exceed 25 
years, if the sentence imposed on the petitioner in this case are allowed 
to take affect consecutively the sentence would exceed 25 years, which it 
was held, is not permitted by section 35 ibid. In Muhammad Ittefaq 
versus The State (1986 SCMR 1627) this court maintained sentence for 
life on two counts and one for seven years as handed down by the trial 
court and no direction was made for the concurrent running of sentence 
either by the trial, or this Court. However, subsequently on criminal 
miscellaneous application in exercise of power under section 35(2) Cr.P.C 
the omission was rectified and this Court (relying on Javaid Shaikh, 
supra) ordered that three sentences two for life and one for seven years in 
same trial to run concurrently. In case of Khan Zaman Khan and others 
versus The State (1987 SCMR 1382), where the High court maintained 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
6
the conviction but modified the sentence one from death to life 
imprisonment on two count and the sentences were ordered to run 
consecutively. In appeal this court exercising enabling power under 
section 35 (2) Cr.P.C and follwing above cited cases ordered the 
sentences to run concurrently.  In Faiz Ahmed and another versus 
Shafiq-ur-Reham and another  (2013 SCMR 583) and in Muhammad 
Sharif versus The State (2014 SCMR 668 (Order on Suo Moto Review Petition) where 
convicts were sentenced on more than one count this Court in 
consideration of fact that multiple offences committed by the offender in 
a sequel of same transaction could be convicted and sentences for each 
of the offences charged and proved against him under respective penal 
provisions separately, however; multiple sentences for numerous offences 
in one trial, as could be seen from the precedents noted above, is treated 
as a single sentence for the purposes of appeal [see section 35(3) Cr.P.C] 
and generally multiple sentences of imprisonment run consecutively 
unless ordered to run concurrently, is being consistently followed as rule 
of thump.  
12. 
 
Generally, where a convict is undergoing sentence in earlier 
conviction and later in a separate trial(s) stand convicted and sentenced 
for imprisonment for life or otherwise for a shorter term, sentence in 
subsequent trial commences after sentence in earlier trial is exhausted. 
However, the trial court seized of subsequent trial and the Appellate 
Courts in appeal arising there from are empowered under section 397 
Cr.P.C to direct that the subsequent sentence(s) to run conjointly with 
previous sentence(s) of imprisonment of life or otherwise as the case may 
be. In the cases cited as Mst. Zubaida versus Falak Sher and others 
(2007 SCMR 548), this Court attending to question of multiple 
convictions in more than one crime and trial took charitable view of  
Section 397 Cr.P.C, while declining leave; observed that section 397 
Cr.P.C empowers the court to direct the subsequent sentence would run 
concurrently with the previous sentence. In the case of. Shahista Bibi 
and another versus Superintendant, Central Jail, MACH and 2 others (PLD 
2015 Supreme Court 15) this court examined provisions of section 35 
Cr. P.C together with section 397 Cr.P.C also took charitable view and 
adopted interpretation beneficial to the accused by ordering concurrent 
running of sentence in two different trials. In a more recent 
pronouncement in the case of Sajjad Ikrram and others versus Sikandar 
Hayat and others (2016 SCMR 467) this Court at page 473 held that 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
7
“The provisions of section 397 Cr.P.C confers wide discretion on the court 
to extend such benefit to the accused in case of peculiar nature” and court 
further observed “that there is nothing wrong in treating the sentence of 
imprisonment for life of convict/appellants on three count to run 
concurrently.”  
13. 
 
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 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.  
14. 
 
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 trial/transactions 
to run consecutively or second sentence after the exhaustion of the first 
mentioned life sentence would be in negation of section 57 of PPC, 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. 
15. 
 
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/convicts concedes that at 
the time of proceeding with the second conviction before this court earlier 
conviction was not brought to the notice of this Court nor there was 
anything on record for this Court to take into consideration the earlier 
conviction while handing down sentence to life in Criminal Appeal 
No.420 of 2002 on 28.8.2012 otherwise the Court would have considered 
and ordered running of the imprisonment sentence to run concurrently. 
However sentence in lieu of fine attached to a substantive sentence of 
imprisonment for life or otherwise would run after the substantive 
sentence(s) are exhausted. Courts have no jurisdiction to  order sentence 
of fine to run concurrently with substantive sentence(s), for the simple 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
8
reason that imprisonment in lieu of or, in default in payment of fine is 
not a sentence but a penalty, which a convict sustain as a consequence 
for non payment of fine the (see also section 64 to 70 P.P.C). Courts, 
however, are empowered under section 388 Cr.P.C to regulate the 
recovery of fine, in instalment by releasing offender on completion of 
substantive sentence of imprisonment, on furnishing bond and or surety 
as may be ordered b y the court. 
16. 
 
Before parting with this judgment, we may well observe that 
section 35, Cr.P.C subject to section 71 of Pakistan Penal Code 
empowers 
not 
only 
the 
trial 
Court 
to 
hand 
down 
several 
Punishment/sentences to a person charged for multiple offence in same 
trial and in its discretion direct that such convection/sentence may run 
concurrently (per proviso thereto, in no case be more than 14 years in 
aggregate)  even the Appellate Court while hearing the appeal against the 
conviction may direct several sentences/punishment handed down in 
same trial; to run concurrently. Whereas section 397 Cr.P.C; enables and 
empowers the trial, and or Appellate/Revisional court, as the case may 
be, in a subsequent trial or in appeal or revision arising out of 
subsequent trial to order for the consolidation of sentence in subsequent 
trial with the sentence(s) handed down in earlier trail(s) as may be 
maintained or modified in appeal/revision arising there from. In case 
earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the at the time of 
handing down the subsequent conviction sentence the Trial or 
Appellate/Revisional Court could exercise such jurisdiction even after 
the sentence of imprisonment in subsequent trial is announced in 
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-ACr/PC read with 
section 397 Cr.P.C, provided of course, where the trial, or superior courts 
of appeal have specifically and consciously ordered the sentences either 
in same trial or in subsequent trial to run consecutively.     
17. 
 
In the light of discussion made above, there remains no 
doubt that the High Court and so also this Court have jurisdiction under 
section 561-A read with section 35 and or section 397 Cr.P.C as the case 
may to ordered such multiple sentences in same transaction/trial or in a 
separate and subsequent trial to run concurrently.  
18. 
 
It seems that when Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2002 arising 
out of consolidated judgment dated 21.5.2002 (arising out of Criminal Appeals 
No.11 and 12 of 2002 from the judgment of the High Court) came up for hearing 
Criminal Petition No.169 of 2007 
 
9
neither the petitioner herein nor the Prosecutor General informed this 
Court that the petitioner had been tried in earlier crime of similar nature, 
has been sentenced to life, which conviction and sentence of 
imprisonment was maintained by this Court, apparently for this reason 
no direction or order to treat sentences of imprisonment awarded in 
separate and successive trial to run concurrently was made.  
19. 
 
In this view of the matter, we would convert this petition into 
appeal and allow and direct that sentences awarded in both the trials as 
detailed in paragraph 4 above to be run concurrently.        
    
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
30th October, 2017 
Arshed 
 
 
Approved for Reporting