P L D 2008 Lahore 266 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2008 Lahore 266 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Interpretation of statutes, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trail |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Lahore 266 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Interpretation of statutes, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trail as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2008 Lahore 266 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Lahore 266 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Makshoof Amjad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 382-B
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.308
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Period of detention to be considered while awarding sentence of imprisonment
While awarding sentence of 14 years' R.I. to accused benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. was not given to him, nor any such request was made before any Court up to the level of Supreme Court
Provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. being mandatory, Trial Court should have considered the same in favour of accused
Where provisions of law were not clearly defined, benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused
Likewise, where two interpretations of law were possible, interpretation favouring the accused had to be preferred
Period of accused spent as under-trial prisoner, therefore; was directed to be counted while calculating the whole period of 14 years' R.I. awarded to him by Trial Court
Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to accused and constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Principle
Where provisions of a law are not clearly defined, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.
Principle
Where two interpretations of law are possible, interpretation favouring the accused person is preferred.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to voice his grievance that the learned trial Court failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. which reads asunder:-- "Where a Court decides to pass a sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence, it "shall" take into consideration the period, if any, during which such accused was detained in custody for such offence." According to the learned counsel, section 382-B, Cr.P.C. required trial Court to observe that the time spent by the petitioner as under trial prisoner would be counted while calculating the 14 years' imprisonment awarded to the petitioner/convict. However, the same was not observed by the learned trial Court. Unfortunately, the same point was not raised before the learned appellate Courts either.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was implicated in F.I.R. No.379/93, dated 23-6-1993, under sections 302, 109 & 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, his trial was conducted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30-9-2000. The petitioner was awarded 14 years' R.I. as Tazir and Diyat amounting to Rs.2,70,493/53, under section 308, P.P.C. His appeal, Criminal Appeal No.268-J/2000 was dismissed by this Court on 17-5-2001. Thereafter, Jail Petition No.85/2001 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19-10-2001. Before both the appellate Courts, neither request for concession under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was raised nor granted by the Courts.
3. In section 382-B, Cr.P.C. the word "may" was substituted with "shall" by Second Amendment Ordinance 71 of 1979, therefore, the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. have become now mandatory. The learned trial Court should have considered the same in favour of the petitioner. It is a continuing practice of this Court that where provisions of a law are not clearly defined, the benefit of doubt is given to an accused person. Likewise, where two interpretations of law are possible, interpretation favouring the accused person is preferred. In view of the above, it is directed that period of petitioner spent as under-trial prisoner be counted while calculating the whole period of 14 years' R.I. awarded to him by the learned trial Court. In this contest, I may refer to 2000 SCMR 1655 and 2005, P.Cr.L.J 1776. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is awarded to the petitioner. N.H.Q./M-16/L Petition allowe