Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner was convicted under several sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad. The convictions and sentences included: 3 years' rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for sedition (S. 124-A, PPC) 7 years' R.I. for abetting mutiny (Ss. 131/109, PPC) 2 years' R.I. for statements conducing to public mischief (S. 505(a), PPC) 4 years' R.I. for forgery and using as genuine a forged document (Ss. 468/471, PPC) 1 year's R.I. for defamation (S. 500, PPC) 2 years' R.I. for forgery for the purpose of harming reputation (S. 469, PPC) All sentences were directed to run concurrently, and the petitioner was given the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., which accounts for the period of detention during trial. The petitioner appealed the convictions and sentences and sought suspension of the sentences during the pendency of the appeal, which was initially declined by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner then filed for a review of the Supreme Court’s decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s sentences should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal considering the time already served and the remissions applicable. 2- Whether the necessary government sanction for cognizance of the offense under Section 124-A, PPC was obtained. 3- Whether the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences was justified given the period already served by the petitioner. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Suspension of Sentences: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had already undergone the majority of his sentences, and if the remissions granted under the law were credited, he would have served almost the entire sentence under sections 131/109, PPC. The Court noted that not a single hearing had taken place in the appeal for more than three years, and the likelihood of the appeal being heard soon was uncertain. In light of the circumstances and following the precedent set in previous cases, the Court decided to suspend the sentences of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. --Government Sanction: The Court took a tentative view that the necessary sanction from the government for taking cognizance of the offense under Section 124-A, PPC might not have been obtained, which would be a matter for the Appellate Court to consider definitively. --High Court’s Refusal: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences. The argument that suspending the sentence would defeat the object of filing the appeal was found to be without substance. The provisions of Section 426(3), Cr.P.C., which exclude the period of suspension from the sentence in case of dismissal of the appeal, were highlighted. The Supreme Court accepted the review petition, set aside the Lahore High Court's order, and suspended the petitioner’s sentences during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. -----Citations/Precedents: Salman Taseer v. Judge, Special Court 1993 SCMR 71 Adnan A. Khawaja v. The State Criminal Petition No. 281 of 2001 Khuda Bux v. Emperor AIR 1934 Calcutta 105 Javed Ahmad v. State 1978 SCMR 114

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner was convicted and sentenced including sedition and abetment to mutiny. The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment, which dismissed his petition for suspension of his conviction and sentence. The review was sought on the grounds that the petitioner had already undergone a significant portion of his sentence and that necessary government sanction for certain charges was not obtained. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition for suspension of conviction and sentence without considering the period already undergone by the petitioner. 2- Whether the necessary sanction for taking cognizance of the offense under Section 124-A of the Penal Code was obtained. 3- Whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence due to having undergone a substantial portion of the sentence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that: The period already undergone by the petitioner was not considered in the previous judgment. The petitioner had completed all sentences except for the one under Sections 131/109 of the Penal Code, and with remissions, he had almost completed the entire sentence. There was a prima facie case that the necessary government sanction under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offense under Section 124-A of the Penal Code was not obtained. Given that the appeal had not been heard for over three years and considering the substantial period already served by the petitioner, the suspension of the sentence was justified in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court reviewed and recalled its earlier judgment, converted the criminal petition into an appeal, and allowed the suspension of the petitioner’s conviction and sentences during the pendency of the appeal before the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. -----Citations/Precedents: Salman Taseer v. Judge, Special Court 1993 SCMR 71 Adnan A. Khawaja v. The State Criminal Petition No.281 of 2001

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.