The Punjab government has supported the imposition of consecutive sentences in grave and heinous crimes, particularly multiple-murder cases, arguing that the practice would help restore public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The provincial government submitted its written response to the Supreme Court in a case concerning whether sentences awarded to convicts involved in multiple murders should run consecutively or concurrently.
Additional Prosecutor General Punjab Tariq Siddique submitted the response, addressing two key questions: whether a sessions court, while convicting and sentencing an accused on multiple counts, is required to direct that the sentences run consecutively or concurrently, and whether the gravity of the offences should also be considered in making that determination.
In its written submissions, the Punjab prosecution argued that courts should not routinely order sentences to run consecutively in every case. Instead, such orders should be passed through reasoned and explicit judicial decisions in exceptional cases involving particularly brutal, inhuman and heinous crimes.
The government maintained that reducing a life sentence to a substantive term of 15 years made it even more important for courts to avoid a mechanical or casual approach when ordering sentences to run concurrently, warning that such a practice could erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. A convict involved in multiple murders should not be given the benefit of release after serving only 15 years, the response argued.
It further stated that routinely ordering concurrent sentences could send a message that the justice system made little distinction between the killing of one person and multiple victims.
Citing the principle of proportionality, the Punjab government argued that when multiple lives were unlawfully taken, each offence should carry an independent and distinct penal consequence.
Merging all sentences into a single concurrent term in multiple-murder cases would dilute the gravity of additional offences and create an artificial equivalence between taking one life and taking several, the response stated. The government further argued that allowing all sentences to run concurrently could effectively convey the message that a person convicted of one murder or several murders could be released after the same period in prison.
Referring to the legislative treatment of heinous crimes, the response said lawmakers had recognised that such offences required special measures. It cited restrictions on the grant of remissions to certain convicts under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as examples of this approach.
The Punjab government maintained that consecutive sentences in grave and heinous offences would not only strengthen public confidence in the administration of criminal justice but also serve the deterrent and retributive objectives of punishment.
Excess land matter can’t be reopened after finalisation: FCC
The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has ruled that land declared surplus and taken into government possession cannot be reopened once the matter has attained finality. However, a separate claim for the return of land allegedly taken in excess can be examined independently.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Rozi Khan Barrech and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah dismissed a petition filed by Mazhar Riaz and upheld the Lahore High Court’s decision. The court directed the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura, to decide the pending matter concerning the determination of surplus land in accordance with the law.
In its judgment, the court observed that the petitioner’s grandfather, Chaudhry Muhammad Afzal, had voluntarily opted during his lifetime to surrender 544 PIUs of land declared surplus. The proceedings had been completed, and the land was subsequently allotted to cultivators in accordance with the law. Therefore, the settled matter could not be reopened. The court clarified that the government’s possession of the 544 PIUs of land and the claim concerning an additional 213 PIUs were two separate matters.
The Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, had already directed the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura, to determine whether 213 PIUs of land had been taken into government possession in excess of the prescribed limit. If established, the excess land would be returned to the legal heirs of the original owner according to their respective shares.
According to the judgment, the petitioner would have the opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The matter would be decided independently and without being influenced by the observations made by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal ground warranting interference with the Lahore High Court’s judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Separately, the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has set aside a decision upholding the rejection of a petition seeking cancellation of the registration of the Field Workers Association, ruling that field workers of the State Life Insurance Corporation (SLIC) paid on commission do not fall within the definition of regular employees under the corporation’s Service Rules, 1973.
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi allowed an appeal filed by SLIC.
In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, the court held that the relevant forums had failed to consider important legal issues and judicial precedents while deciding the matter.
According to the judgment, the Service Rules, 1973 define an employee as a full-time worker receiving a monthly salary, excluding field personnel whose earnings depend on the business generated by them. However, the rules provide certain exemptions for area managers subject to specified conditions.