2001 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2001. Briefly stated the facts are that on the statement of complainant Jamil Akhtar, Manager Allied Bank of Pakistan, Yazman, F.I.R. No.96 of 1997, dated 12‑4‑1997 was registered under sections 392/411 and 109, P.P.C. at Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur against Raja Shahid, Muhammad Awais, Abid Mahmood, Khushal Khan and Miraj Din. The case was tried by the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur who vide judgment, dated 27‑9‑2000 acquitted Abid Mehmood aforementioned but convicted, the remaining accused under sections 392/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000 each or in default thereof to undergo R.I. for six months each. However, they were extended benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioners approached the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur/respondent No.1 for awarding them remission granted to the convicts by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time. Their request was not acceded by respondent No.1. Hence they have been constrained to file the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to grant them remission as allowed to them vide notifications issued by the Government from time to time.

3. Comments called have been filed and brought on record.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioners that they are entitled to remissions vide notifications issued from time to time, as the embargo imposed in the said notifications is not applicable to the case of the present petitioners. He submits that petitioners have been convicted only under section 392/34, P.P.C., which offence has not been excluded from the operation of the remissions granted to the convicts.

6. Conversely, the stand of respondent No.1 is that since the petitioners stand charged for the commission of dacoity, so they are not entitled to the remission granted by the Government vide different notifications.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that the notifications granting remissions exclude the offences including dacoity, which has been defined in section 391, P.P.C. and is punishable under section 395, P.P.C. The offence of robbery has been defined under section 390, P.P.C. and is punishable under section 392, P.P.C. The notifications issued by the Government from time to time exclude the convicts charged with the commission of offence of dacoity punishable under section 395, P.P.C. But these notifications do not exclude the convicts of offence under section 392, P.P.C. The petitioners, in A the instant writ, have been convicted under section 392/34, P.P.C. as such their case squarely falls within the purview of notifications and the said embargo is not attracted in the instant case.

8. In the light of facts narrated above, stand of respondent No.1 that petitioners are not entitled to the remission granted by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time, is not correct. Accordingly writ e petition is accepted and respondent No.1 is directed to grant remission to the petitioners as admissible vide notifications issued from time to time. N.H.Q./S‑148/L Petition accepted.