PCRLJ 1968

1968 PLP 355 (PCRLJ)

RAJAH SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHERS Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4543 of 1,967, decided on 9th January 1968
Honorable Judges
Shaukat Ali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1968 PLP 355 (PCRLJ)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Shaukat Ali, J
Parties RAJAH SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHERS Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 355 (PCRLJ)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 355 (PCRLJ)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaukat Ali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 355 (PCRLJ) (RAJAH SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHERS Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.
  • Mian Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A. G. and Akhtar Hussain Siddiqui for Respondents.
  • Dates of hearing: 15th and 22nd December 1967.

Headnotes / Summary

SentenceRemissionSentence of prisoner remitted on occasion of Revolution Day‑Remission entered in history ticket and acted upon by Jail Authorites‑Held, cannot be recalled but has to be given effect to. G. L. Bhattacharya v. State P L D 1964 S C 503 rel.

Judgment & Decree

(ii) Education remission. 1 year 6 months (iii) Minister remission 0 year 2 months (iv) I. G. Prisons remission 0 year 2 months (v) Director of Prisons remission 0 year 3 months (vi) Ordinary Jail remission 2 years 4 months 18 days

8 years 11 months 18 days On 11th March 1964, the Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Home Department, Lahore, commuted the sentence of the petitioner of transportation for life to ten years' R. I. From this it is obvious that the Provincial Government in exercise of its powers under section 402, Cr. P. Code has com muted the sentence of transportation for life passed on the petitioner to ten years' R. I. or in other words reduced or exchanged the sentence for a period of ten years' R. I.

3. The word "sentence" has been defined in the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965 as follows: ‑ "Sentence means a sentence as finally fixed on appeal, revision or otherwise, and includes an aggregate of more sentences than one, and an order of committal to prison in default of furnishing security to keep the peace or be of good behaviour." In the instant case, the Provincial Government finally commuted the sentence of transportation for life to ten years' R. I. As such the petitioner was required to undergo ten years' R. I. in lieu of transportation for life plus the other sentences awarded on him, i.e. a total sentence of 17 years' R. I. According to the remissions entered in the history ticket the petitioner had already earned a remission of sentence for a period of 8 years 11 months and 18 days and calculating the total remissions of sentence earned by the petitioner and the total period of sentence of 8 years 11 months and one day that he had suffered, the convict had already suffered a sentence of 17 years 10 months and 19 days.

4. Mr. Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A.‑G., appearing on behalf of the State stoutly contended that the remission of sentence of 4 years and 6 months as entered in the history ticket of the convict on occasions of Revolution Day was calculated on the basis of sentences of 27 years as it stood in the year 1959 and that it should be calculated on the basis of two months per year on the sentence of 17 years finally awarded by the Provincial Govern ment and not on the basis of 27 years as it stood in the year 1959. According to him "sentence" means a sentences as finally fixed on appeal, revision or otherwise as defined is the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965. In the circumstances he urged that the convict bad earned a remission of sentence of 2 years and 10 months and not 4 years and 6 months as entered in the history ticket. A cursory glance at rule 20 of the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965, would show that the remission awarded on occasions of public rejoicing is not to be governed by these rules. Furthermore, the remission of sentence passed by the Provincial Government and entered in the history ticket of the convict and acted upon could not be recalled by them. This view of mine finds support from the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. L. Bhattacharya v. State (PLD1964 S C 503), where their Lordships held that the remissions, which have already been granted by the Central or the Provincial Governments and entered in the history ticket of the prisoner could not be taken away. In this view of the matter, I hold that the remission of sentence of Revolution Day as entered in the history ticket and acted upon by the Jail Authorities cannot be recalled and has to be given effect to.

5. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the applicant was entitled to be released on the 2nd February 1967, and was in the eye of law a free man. Thereafter he could not be kept in custody and his detention was not it, accordance with law. He is, therefore, entitled to immediate release. The petition, therefore, succeeds and the convict is set at liberty. The petitioner was released on bail by my order dated the 2nd of December 1967. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Petition accepted.