P L D 1967 Lahore 557 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 9th March 1967. This is an application under section 491 read with section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for ordering that the petitioner be set free. The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly put, are these. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 18‑8‑1958 under section 302, P. P. C. and was sentenced to transportation for life. He was also sentenced to imprisonments under sections 120‑B and 342, P. P. C. but the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with the life imprisonment. The petitioner during the period of his imprison ment earned remission of six years, two months and fifteen days. The report of the Superintendent District Jail, Lahore, confirms the submission of the petitioner as regards the remission of sentence. The petitioner completed fourteen years' sentence after excluding the remission on the 17th of September 1966. He is thus entitled to be set at liberty. His detention after that date is illegal.

2. Before I pass the necessary order, it would be useful to mention in some detail as to what is the position of a person sentenced to transportation for life. "Life convict" is defined in the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965, hereinafter to be referred to as 1965 Rules, as under:‑ "'Life convict' means a convict sentenced to transportation for life, such sentence shall mean fourteen years rigorous imprisonment." Under the Prisons Act, 1894, "remission system" means the rules for the time being in force regulating the award of marks to, and the consequent shortening of sentences of, prisoners in jails. The Provincial Government under section 59 of the Prisons Act has power to make rules consistent with the Act for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences, and for rewards for good conduct. Remission under the 1965 Rules may be ordinary or special. In this case, reference may be made to rule 19 (2) of 1965 Rules. Under this provision, remission, both ordinary and special, earned by a life convict shall not exceed four years under any circumstances. The question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the remission of sentence for more than four years. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on rule 20 of 1965 Rules, which reads as under:‑ "Special remission is awarded by Government on occasions of public rejoicing. It is granted unconditionally under section 401(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and is not governed by these Rules." The submission is that the remission granted by the Govern ment under section 401, Cr. P. C. is to be added to the ordinary and special remission which no doubt cannot exceed four years. That this is so is not disputed by the Superintendent District Jail, Lahore. The learned Additional Advocate‑General supports the contention of the learned Advocate for the peti tioner.

3. It appears from a perusal of the report of Superinten dent District Jail that the petitioner has not been set free as under the Jail Manual the Superintendent has to make a reference to the Provincial Government and await their orders. The Superintendent of Jail has made the requisite reference to the Provincial Government but has not received any orders so far.

4. It is clear from the facts stated above that the petitioner is entitled to the remission of sentence. He has served the period which he was required to serve under the 1965 Rules. His detention is, therefore, illegal. I would, therefore, direct the Superintendent District Jail, Lahore, to set free the applicant. A. H.