2001 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN alias GAMI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL,
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN alias GAMI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN alias GAMI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhuttoa for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 10(3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 411‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art;.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Remissions allowed by Government in sentence, award of‑‑‑Embargo had been imposed on the grant of remission in sentence where the accused was convicted for an offence of gang rape punishable under S.10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Accused in the case was undergoing imprisonment under S.10(3) and not under S.10(4) of the said Ordinance‑‑ Even otherwise the accused having been charged for the commission of offence on 2~‑1‑1996, amendment relating to the commission of the offence under S.10(4) of the Ordinance introduced on 21‑4‑1997 was not applicable‑‑‑Similarly Presidential Order granting remission in sentence did not debar the award of such remission when convicted under S.392, P.P.C.‑‑‑Presidential Orders granting remissions in sentences from time to time, therefore, were applicable to the case of accused‑‑‑Superintendent of the Jail concerned was consequently directed to grant remissions to the accused in terms of the Presidential Orders‑‑‑Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 17th January, 2001. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of F.I.R. No.20 of 1996, dated 27‑1‑1996 under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) and under sections 392/411, P.P.C. a case was registered against the present petitioner as well as Muhammad Ismail and Imam Din. The case was tried by the Special Court constituted under the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997. Vide judgment, dated 19‑9‑1997 the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Ismail and Imam Din (not petitioners before this Court) were sentenced under sections 392 and 411, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 10 years, and 3 years each respectively. They were also convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years each. They were extended the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. On appeal the sentences awarded under sections 392/411, P.P.C. were maintained. However, the sentence awarded under section 10(3) (ibid) was reduced from 14 years to 10 years each. The petitioner as well as his co accused Muhammad Ismail and Imam Din are now undergoing the sentences awarded to them.
2. The petitioner requested the respondent to extend him benefit of remissions provided in the Presidential Orders issued from time to time, but as his request was not acceded hence the instant Constitutional writ petition.
3. Comments of respondent have been called wherein they have controverted the stand of the petitioner and asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to the remissions as he stands charged for the commission of offence under section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) which has been excluded in the Presidential Order granting remissions from time to time.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions enumerated in the writ petition. To corroborate his contention, he further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the remissions awarded to him through Presidential Order as the embargo imposed in the said Presidential Order is not applicable to him.
6. Conversely the stand of the respondent is that as the petitioner has committed rape alongwith two other persons so his case falls within the embargo imposed in the said Presidential Order. It is, thus, asserted by the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of remissions granted vide Presidential Orders issued from time to time.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence in the instant case took place on 26‑1‑1996 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 27‑1‑1996. It is fact that on the basis of said F.I.R. the case proceeded and was finally tried by the learned trial Court. Vide judgment, dated 19‑9‑1997 the petitioner has been convicted under section 392, P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years. The offence under section 392, P.P.C. is not included in the offence to which the Presidential Order is not applicable. There is no doubt that an embargo has been imposed if an accused has been convicted in a case of gang rape. However, it is a fact that in the instant case the petitioner has not been convicted for the commission of gang rape which offence falls under section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. As the said offence (gang rape) has been introduced through an amendment, dated 21‑4‑1997 whereas the petitioner stands charged for the commission of offence on 26‑1‑1996, as such the said amendment relating to commission of offence under section 10(4) (ibid) is not applicable in the instant case.
8. Since the petitioner has not been convicted and sentenced in, any of the offences to which the Presidential Orders are not applicable, so he is entitled to the remissions allowed to him vide Presidential'' Orders issued 8 from time to time. This being the factual position, the writ petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to grant remissions to the petitioner in terms of above quoted Presidential Orders. N.H.Q./G‑61/L Petition accepted.