Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Ss. 35, 382-B & 397 — Sentences from multiple cases — Power to order concurrency — Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope Concurrent running of sentences — Two separate murder cases — Trial courts and appellate courts silent on concurrency — Jail authorities treating sentences as consecutive — Scope of High Court’s power to intervene — Petitioner was convicted in two separate murder trials (FIRs No. 297/2001 and 47/2006) and awarded life imprisonment in both cases — In both appeals, High Court had modified death sentences to life but did not specifically order concurrency of sentences — Petitioner sought relief under Art. 199 of the Constitution to have his sentences run concurrently — Jail authorities were treating the sentences consecutively due to absence of specific order — Held, in light of Rahib Ali v. The State (2018 SCMR 418) and Noor Muhammad v. The State (2025 SCMR 540), the High Court has jurisdiction under S. 397 CrPC read with S. 561-A and S. 35 CrPC to direct concurrency of sentences arising out of separate trials where circumstances justify — Petitioner had been in custody since 2006, had served his sentence in one case with remission, and no appeal/review was pending — Relief granted. Held, the High Court has constitutional and statutory jurisdiction to direct concurrent running of sentences in multiple trials, especially when justice demands it and no statutory bar exists. Cited Cases: • Rahib Ali v. The State (2018 SCMR 418) • Noor Muhammad v. The State (2025 SCMR 540) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Ss. 35, 382-B & 397 — Concurrent sentences — Principle of judicial discretion — Remissions and fairness in sentencing Convict had earned over five years of remission and completed sentence in one case by March 2023 — Second sentence had commenced without concurrency order — Held, once benefit of S. 382-B CrPC and remission has been granted, further incarceration due to administrative interpretation offends fairness — Courts are expected to exercise discretion in favour of concurrency unless public interest dictates otherwise — No evidence of aggravating circumstances justifying consecutive execution — Benefit of concurrency directed to be applied to all substantive sentences except default imprisonment for non-payment of fine, compensation, and Daman. Held, concurrency is to be presumed in absence of express direction to the contrary when no compelling reason exists to treat sentences consecutively. (c) Disposition Writ petition accepted in terms — Petitioner’s sentences in FIR No. 297/2001 and FIR No. 47/2006 to run concurrently — Sentences in default of compensation, fine, and Daman excluded — Petition disposed of accordingly. "If any person has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in more than one case and it is not mentioned in the judgments of the cases about running of sentences concurrently, then High Court can pass order for running of sentences in all the cases "concurrently".

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ---- Ss. 35, 382-B, 397, 401; Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302/34, 460; Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ---- Rr. 40, 140, 199, 204, 205, 217, 218 Undertrial detention benefit in case of consecutive life sentences --- Petitioner, convicted on four counts (three under S.302/34 and one under S.460 PPC), sentenced to life imprisonment on each count to run consecutively --- Petitioner claimed that his undertrial detention period of 1 year, 7 months, and 24 days should be deducted four times (once per life sentence) under S. 382-B Cr.P.C. --- Held, S. 382-B Cr.P.C., though a beneficial provision, refers to “an offence” and its applicability to multiple consecutive sentences must be judicially interpreted --- Cumulative sentence of 100 years, though passed on multiple counts, is to be treated as a single sentence for purpose of release calculation under Rule 40 of Prisons Rules and S. 35(3) Cr.P.C. --- Accordingly, benefit of undertrial detention is to be counted once only --- No illegality in administrative or jail authority’s calculation --- However, the Prison Department is authorized to refer petitioner’s case to the Government for remission under Rr. 140(iii), 199, and 217 of the Prisons Rules and S. 401 Cr.P.C., subject to conditions including consent of legal heirs of deceased victims. (b) Criminal Law --- Remission of sentence --- Scope and entitlement under Prisons Rules and Cr.P.C. Petitioner earned remissions totaling 59 years on a 100-year cumulative sentence --- Held, remissions (ordinary and special) cannot reduce a life sentence below 15 years under Rr. 140 and 217 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 --- Remissions awarded on all four counts cumulatively by jail authorities not supported by record or material justification --- Inspector General of Prisons directed to ensure strict compliance with remission rules and maintain clarity in application of Rule 217 cap on one-third remission unless special orders are obtained from Government. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302/34, 460; Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ---- S. 397 Consecutive life sentences and calculation of start of imprisonment --- Supreme Court while converting death penalty to life imprisonment on three counts under S.302/34 directed sentences to run consecutively, not concurrently --- Petitioner was already serving life imprisonment under S.460 PPC --- Held, under S. 397 Cr.P.C., a subsequent sentence begins only after expiration of the previous unless the court directs otherwise --- No such direction by Supreme Court; hence, sentences to run back-to-back --- Total sentence of petitioner extended to 100 years. (d) Interpretation of statutes ---- Beneficial interpretation and use of singular/plural forms --- Ss. 4 & 9, Cr.P.C.; Interpretation of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Argument that S. 382-B Cr.P.C. should be applied multiple times due to plural interpretation of “offence” rejected --- Held, although definitions in Ss. 4 & 9 Cr.P.C. allow singular to include plural, this cannot override express statutory structure where consecutive sentences are treated as one for release computation --- Judicial determination upheld that undertrial period must be deducted only once in cumulative life sentence cases. (e) Constitutional Petition ---- Mandamus --- Interference in administrative calculation of sentence Petitioner filed constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for direction to count undertrial detention four times --- Held, no violation of law or miscarriage of justice found --- Sentence computation by jail authorities found consistent with law and rules --- Petition dismissed. Disposition: Constitutional petition dismissed. Cited Cases: Javid Shaikh v. The State (1985 SCMR 153) Jumma Khan v. The State (1986 SCMR 1573) Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 1145) Qadir and another v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 1065) Shah Hussain v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 460) Asfaq Ahmad v. The State (2017 SCMR 307) Muhammad Zahir alias Tiko v. The State (2011 SCMR 38) Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (PLD 1998 SC 152) Sajjad Ikram v. Sikandar Hayat (2016 SCMR 467) Others referenced in para 7 of judgment. ------ "Detention period during trial shall be counted once in case of consecutive sentence."