The principle enunciated in this authoritative verdict is that while interpreting a punitive law curtailing liberty of person, court was required to strive in search of an interpretation, which preferred the liberty of a person instead of curtailing the same and that too unreasonably and unfairly, unless, the statutory law clearly directed otherwise. If two equal interpretations were possible then the one favourable to the accused and his liberty must be adopted and preferred. It was also held that provisions of Ss. 35 & 397 Cr.P.C. widened the scope of discretion of the court to direct that sentences of imprisonment or that of life imprisonment awarded at the same trial or at two different trials but successively, shall run concurrently. Once the legislation had conferred the said discretion in the court, then in hardship cases, courts were required to seriously take into consideration the same to the benefit of the accused so as to minimize and liquidate hardship treatment. Court of law could not fold up its hands to deny the benefit of Ss.35 & 397, Cr.P.C. to an accused person as denial would amount to ruthless treatment.
PLD 2015 S.C. 15
0 Comments