Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 710
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-07-08
Parties: Sanaullah Sabzoi vs The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2024-07-08, officially reported as 2024 SHC 710. In this matter between Sanaullah Sabzoi and The State, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2024SHC710
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Irshad Ali Shah Title: Sanaullah Sabzoi vs The State Case No.: Crl. Revision Appln.No.S-31 of 2024 Date of Judgment:2024-07-08 Reported As: 2024 SHC 710 Result: Application Disposed of
Judgment
ORDER
1. Over-ruled. 2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of instant Crl.Revision Application are that the applicant for possessing an unlicensed T.T pistol with a magazine containing five live bullets of the same bore, on completion of trial was convicted under Section 23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default in payment whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, with the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 24.04.2024, which he impugned by preferring an appeal; it was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot vide order dated 23.05.2024, by observing that the sentence awarded to the applicant exceeds four years, therefore, the appeal is to be filed before the High Court; such order is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the punishment awarded to the applicant was not exceeding four years, therefore, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have disposed of the appeal of the appellant by way of impugned order, the same being illegal to be set aside by this Court. in support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Aslam Vs. The State (1994 PCr.LJ-73). Learned D.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order. Heard arguments and perused the record.,
---
## Page 2
As per Section 408 (b) Cr.PC, when the sentence passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge exceeds four years, then the appeal would lie before the High Court. In the instant case, the substantial sentence awarded to the applicant for the said offence is four years. The fine is an additional punishment which could hardly be calculated towards substantial sentence. In such a situation, the appeal preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Court was competent and is to be disposed of on merits. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The instant Crl. Revision Application is disposed of ccordingly.