P L D 2003 Lahore 387 (PLP)
RUB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2003 Lahore 387 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RUB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2003 Lahore 387 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2003 Lahore 387 (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 2003 Lahore 387 (PLP) (RUB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Khyzar Hayat for Petitioner.
- 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, have gone through the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison Rules framed thereunder. A bare reading of the afore-referred provisions of law would indicate that it is not at all amenable to the construction which petitioner's learned counsel seeks to draw. Section 55 of the Prisons Act does not talk of petitioner's remaining out of the prison during the period when his sentence was suspended, therefore, the same is not relevant. Rule 206 of the Prison Rules specifically excludes the period the prisoners spent out- of jail on account of temporary suspension of sentence by a Court order, from consideration for the purpose of remissions. Similarly Rules 35, 38 and 218 ibid have no nexus with the issue raised in this petition. For afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S.302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 45 & 199
Prisons Act (IX of 1894), S.55
Prison Rules, Rr.35, 38, 206 & 218
Government of Punjab Notification No. SO(MP)/14-1/97 28-8-1997
Constitutional petition
Remission of sentence by President of Pakistan under Art.45, Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Accused was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a compensation of Rs.30,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased
Sentence of accused, however, was suspended by High Court on statutory ground but his appeal was dismissed where after he was committed to judicial custody Government of the Punjab, during the currency of suspension of sentence of the accused issued Notification No.SO(MP)/14-1/97 conveying the order of the President of Pakistan under Art. 45 of the Constitution granting remission of sentence
Petitioner convict, in circumstances, could not be granted remission in terms of the notification during the period when he was out of prison and his sentence Clad been suspended by the High Court
Provisions of S.55, Prisons Act, 1894 read with Prison Rules, Rr.35, 38, 206 & 218 had no nexus with the issue in question.
Judgment & Decree
"In exercise of powers under Article 45 of the Constitution, the President has been pleased to grant remission in the sentence on the occasion of Golden Jubilee Independence Day, 1997 as under:-- (a) Remission at 1/5th of the total sentence; (b) total remission of the remaining sentence for the male prisoners who are 65. years of age or above and have undergone imprisonment for LO years and above. This concession would not apply to the condemned prisoners; (c) total remission of the remaining sentence for female prisoners who are 60 years of age or above and have undergone imprisonment for 10 years and above. This concession would not apply to the condemned prisoners. The above remission would be admissible to prisoners undergoing sentence for offences other than espionage, subversion, gang-rape, bank dacoities and anti-State activities. The number of prisoners benefited in each category may be intimated at the earliest."
2. The issue raised in this petition is whether the petitioner-convict could be granted remissions in terms of the afore-referred notification during the period when he was out of prison and his sentence had been suspended by this Court?
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 read with Rules 35, 38, 206 and 218 of the Prison Rules to contend that the petitioner is entitled to remissions even during the period be was out of prison as his sentence stood suspended.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, have gone through the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison Rules framed thereunder. A bare reading of the afore-referred provisions of law would indicate that it is not at all amenable to the construction which petitioner's learned counsel seeks to draw. Section 55 of the Prisons Act does not talk of petitioner's remaining out of the prison during the period when his sentence was suspended, therefore, the same is not relevant. Rule 206 of the Prison Rules specifically excludes the period the prisoners spent out- of jail on account of temporary suspension of sentence by a Court order, from consideration for the purpose of remissions. Similarly Rules 35, 38 and 218 ibid have no nexus with the issue raised in this petition. For afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./R-221/L Petition dismissed.