2000 PLP 2971 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2971 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2971 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2971 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2971 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants.
- Saleem Nawaz Abbasi, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2000,
- 2. We have gone through the record of this case and have found that the appellants were never convicted for an offence of dacoity whereas, apart from the other offences committed by them, they had in fact been convicted for an offence under section 394, P.P.C. which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It goes without saying that offences of robbery and dacoity are quite distinct from' each other carrying different sentences and having different constituting ingredients therefor. It appears that the said distinction has not been borne in mind by respondent No. l while interpreting the said notifications regarding remissions. We are of the opinion that the categories of cases excluded from extension of the said remissions have nexus with the gravity of the said. offences. It goes without saying that an offence of dacoity is surely a graver offence than an offence of robbery. It, therefore, has appeared to us that it was the graver offence, i.e. dacoity which was excluded by the Government for the purposes of the said remissions and the offence of robbery was included for the purposes of extension of the said remissions. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has also agreed with us regarding this interpretation of the said Notifications.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.394‑‑‑Extension of benefit of Government remissions to accused‑‑‑Benefit of the remissions allowed by the Government to the prisoners had been declined to accused because the case against them was one of dacoity which category had been expressly excluded for the purpose of the said remissions‑‑‑Accused were never convicted for an offence of dacoity and they had been in fact convicted under S. 394, P.P.C. which pertained to voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery‑‑‑Offences of robbery and dacoity were quite distinct from each other, carrying different sentences and having different constituting ingredients‑‑‑Offence of dacoity being a graver offence than the offence of robbery appeared to have been excluded by the Government for the purpose of the aforesaid remissions, but not the offence of robbery‑‑‑Impugned order was consequently set aside and the benefit of the said remissions was extended to the accused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants. Saleem Nawaz Abbasi, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2000, ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.‑‑‑Through the present appeal the appellants who are undergoing various sentences after having been convicted in case F.I.R. No.277 of 1991 registered at Police. Station A‑Division, Rahimyar Khan have approached this Court seeking extension of the benefit of the remissions allowed to prisoners/convicts by the Government through Notifications, dated 16‑1‑1999, 31‑5‑1999 and 5‑1‑2000. The comments submitted by respondent No.l before this Court show that the said remissions were being refused to the present appellants because the case against them was one of dacoity which category had been expressly excluded for the purposes of extension of the said remissions.
2. We have gone through the record of this case and have found that the appellants were never convicted for an offence of dacoity whereas, apart from the other offences committed by them, they had in fact been convicted for an offence under section 394, P.P.C. which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It goes without saying that offences of robbery and dacoity are quite distinct from' each other carrying different sentences and having different constituting ingredients therefor. It appears that the said distinction has not been borne in mind by respondent No. l while interpreting the said notifications regarding remissions. We are of the opinion that the categories of cases excluded from extension of the said remissions have nexus with the gravity of the said. offences. It goes without saying that an offence of dacoity is surely a graver offence than an offence of robbery. It, therefore, has appeared to us that it was the graver offence, i.e. dacoity which was excluded by the Government for the purposes of the said remissions and the offence of robbery was included for the purposes of extension of the said remissions. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has also agreed with us regarding this interpretation of the said Notifications.
3. In view of what has been observed above this Intra‑Court Appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge- in‑Chamber on 22‑11‑1999 in Writ Petition No. 3886 of 1999 is set aside and, while allowing the said writ petition, respondent No.l is directed to extends the benefit of the abovementioned Notification regarding remissions to the present appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. N.H.Q./M‑306/L I.C.A. Allowed.