P L D 1980 Karachi 164 (PLP)

Z. A. CHANNA, J.-The sole point involved in these two Constitutional Petitioner is whether the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, has retrospective operation and persons who were sentenced to transportation for life before the coming into force of the said Ordinance could be made to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The facts in Constitutional Petition No. D-20 of 1979 are that three persons by name, Golo son of Wazir Bagri, Bhagto son of Kalu alias Kutano and Ranjho sort of Luhno were convicted on 18-3-1970 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in respect of an offence under section 302/149, P. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to transportation for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default 'to undergo R. 1. for 6 months. They were further sentenced under section 147, P. P. C., to R. 1. for a period of 6 months, with the direction that this sentence was to run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded to them under section 302;149, P. P. C. They appealed against their convictions and sentences to this Court But the appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, the convicts are undergoing the sentences awarded to them. It appears, however, that they have an apprehension that their sentence of transportation for life is being construed by the Jail Authorities as sentence of imprisonment for life, which is not only a different type of sentence but a much heavier sentence as well. The apprehension has been engendered in their minds on account of the fact that they have been placed by the Jail Authorities in the category of "persons awarded life imprisonment".

3. The facts in Constitutional Petition No. D-61 of 1979, are that by his judgment delivered on 18-11-1968, the ,learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, convicted Muhammad Soomar son of Rasool Bux of offences under sections 302, 436 and 309, P. P. C., and awarded him sentence of transportation for life under section 302, P. P. C., three years imprisonment under section 436, and one year imprisonment under section 30?, P. P. C., with the direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. It appears that the convict did not appeal against his convictions and the sentences awarded to him. He is undergoing these sentences in the Central Jail, Khairpur. The convict apprehends that his sentence of transportation for life is being construed by the Jail Authorities as a sentence of imprisonment for life as despite the fact he has undergone the sentence which normally persons awarded transportation for life are required. to undergo, he has not so far been released from the Jail. 4. 1t may be pointed out that prior to the coming into force of the Law Reforms Ordinance; 1972, on 14th April, 1972, a sentence of transportation for life could be awarded but not a sentence for imprisonment for life. The latter sentence was introduced and substituted in the place of transportation for life by the said Ordinance. This sentence was defined in section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code to mean a sentence of 25 years imprisonment as against 20 years imprisonment in the case of sentence of transportation for life. However, as .the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972: is not retrospective in operation and as a matter of fact it could not be made retroactive in the matter of any increase in the sentences already awarded or prescribed for offences which had already been committed, no sentences of imprisonment for life could be awarded, at least in respect of offences under the P. P. C. committed before the coming into force of the said Ordinance, nor can a sentence of transportation for life awarded by a Court before the coming into force of the said Ordinance be construed ;- a sentence of imprisonment for. life as defined in the amended section 57, 1'. P. C. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Elahl v. Choudhry Zafarul Haq (1), and Muhammad Hussein Shah. v. The ,Slate (2), the legal sentence before the coming into force of the Law Reforms Ordinance was transportation for life and not imprisonment for life.

5. We would accordingly declare that the convicts in the two petition are to be dealt with as having been awarded sentence of transportation for life, which was the legal sentence at the time when they were. convicted and sentenced, and such sentence is not to be treated, or construed as imprisonment for life. In the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. (1) P L D 1976 S C 557 (2) P L D 1977.S C 548