FRANCIS CHILEMBA v. R.(1968) HCD 510
Held:
Appeal allowed. The sentences imposed in this case are ordered to run concurrently
with the sentence imposed in the previous case, as from the date the previous
sentence itself was imposed. (1) It was to the accused ’s credit that he
pleaded guilty to the charges. “It is generally, if not universally, recognized
that an accused pleading guilty to an offence with which he is charged,
qualifies him for the exercise of mercy from the court. The reason is, I think,
obvious, in that one of the main objects of punishment is the reformation of
the offender. Contrition is the first step towards reformation, and a
confession of a crime, as opposed to brazening it out, is and indication of
contrition. Therefore, in such a case, a court can and does impose a milder
sentence than it would otherwise have done. “
(2) “By section 295 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1963(by the addition of the words “or
in the Penal code” at the end thereof):- “….Every sentence shall be deemed to
commence from and to included, the whole of the day of the date on which it was
pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code or in the Penal Code.”
It is evident from the respective provisions of the Penal Code [s36] and the
Criminal Procedure Code, before that in the latter was amended by the addition
of the words “in the Penal Code,” the power of a court to order a sentence of
imprisonment to run concurrently with a previous one imposed was limited to
ordering it to run concurrently with only the unexpired portion of such
previous sentence, as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code
which permits a court to order a sentence to run earlier than the day on which
it is pronounced. On my construction [of s. 295, Criminal Procedure Code as
amended, and s. 36, Penal Code] read together…… a court is empowered to order a
sentence to run concurrently with a previous sentence as from the date the
previous sentence itself commenced to run.”
No comments:
Post a Comment