Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1952 PLD 266
Court / Jurisdiction: DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
Parties: KISMAT ALI vs ABDUL KADER
This judicial decision was delivered by the DHAKA-HIGH-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between KISMAT ALI and ABDUL KADER, officially reported as 1952 PLD 266. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
PLD 1952 Dacca 266
PLD 1952 Dacca 266
Before Amin Ahmed and Ibrahim, JJ
KISMAT ALI‑Accused‑Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL KADER‑Complainant‑Opposite‑Party
Criminal Revision No. 421 of 1951, decided on 24th July 1951.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 408‑Simultaneous sen tences of imprisonment and fine though permissible should not be inflicted, unless necessary in interest of justice.
Though it is permissible under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. to inflict sentence of fine simultaneously with the sub stantive sentence of imprisonment, ordinarily the double sentence should not be inflicted unless necessary in the interest of justice.
Islam and another v. King Emperor 35 C W N 519 ref.
Maksum‑ul‑Hakim, for K. Hossain for Petitioner.
Nemo for the Crown.
JUDGMENT
IBRAHIM, J.‑---This rule was issued on the ground of sentence only. The petitioner is the gomosta of the complainant. He was entrusted with cash of Rs. 1,500 for purchase of paddy in the district of Sylhet. After the money was paid the petitioner proceeded to Shamserganj with a boat but he left the boat at Bhairab on the plea that he would go to Shamser ganj by Railway train and directed the boatman to go to Shamserganj. He, however, did not go there. The boatman ultimately returned and reported the whole thing to the complainant. The petitioner was, thereafter, repeatedly asked to return the money but he did not return it. On these facts he was convicted under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months.
Though it is permissible under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. to inflict sentence of fine simultaneously with the sub stantive sentence of imprisonment, ordinarily the double sentence should not be inflicted unless necessary in the interest of justice. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of Islam and another v. King Emperor 35 C W N 519. The learned Magistrate did not award any compensation to the complainant in this case.
We do not think, in the circumstances, that there should be double sentence and accordingly we set aside the sentence of fine but uphold the conviction and sentence of imprison ment under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. The fine should be refunded, if already paid. He will now surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remainder of sentence imposed upon him.
The rule is made absolute in these terms.
AMIN AHMED, J.‑---I agree.
A.H. Rule made absolute.