Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CROWN VS Respondent: KHUSHDIL KHAN
P
P. L. D. 1949 Baluchistan 12 Before Bacon, J. C. CROWN‑Complainant‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHDIL KHAN‑Convict‑Respondent Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1948, decided on 16th December 1948, under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code against order, dated 3rd August 1948, passed by the City Magistrate, Quetta, with prayer to enhance the sentence. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑Appeal pending in Sessions Court‑Petition for enhancement of sentence pre‑mature. Bacon, J. C ---‑In this case an appeal by the accused is pending in the Court of the Sessions judge against conviction and sentence. The petition filed in this Court for enhancement of sentence is in my opinion premature. In the event of the accused succeeding in his appeal against conviction, there would be no question of enhancement of punishment. Admittedly, as argued by the Public Prosecutor, the Sessions judge has no jurisdiction to enhance a sentence in appeal of section 423 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but at the same time lie is competent to report the case to the High Court should be consider the sentence awarded by the Lower Court to be inadequate. The better course would be for the Public Prosecutor to convince the Sessions judge that a more severe sentence was called for and to move him to refer .the case to the High Court. I am not prepared to withdraw this case from the Session Court and dispose of the appeal and petition together. Such a procedure would be unusual and I consider that the Public Prosecutor must await the result of the appeal pending in the Sessions Court. For the above reasons, I reject this petition. A. H. Petition rejected.