P L D 1990 Lahore 389 (PLP)
NASEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LAHORE and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1990 Lahore 389 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptn., dated 8‑12‑1988, sub‑para.(h)‑‑ Announcement of certain measures by President of Pakistan for relief to the prisoners convicted by Military Courts ‑‑‑ While commuting the total period of imprisonment undergone by a convict, the period which he served as under‑trial prisoner shall also be considered ‑‑‑ Convict having remained in prison for a period of more than five years, and being more than sixty years of age on 8‑12‑1988, the Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptns., dated 8‑12‑1988 was fully applicable to his case and the sentence, therefore, stood remitted under the said Notification.‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | NASEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LAHORE and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1990 Lahore 389 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1990 Lahore 389 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptn., dated 8‑12‑1988, sub‑para.(h)‑‑ Announcement of certain measures by President of Pakistan for relief to the prisoners convicted by Military Courts ‑‑‑ While commuting the total period of imprisonment undergone by a convict, the period which he served as under‑trial prisoner shall also be considered ‑‑‑ Convict having remained in prison for a period of more than five years, and being more than sixty years of age on 8‑12‑1988, the Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptns., dated 8‑12‑1988 was fully applicable to his case and the sentence, therefore, stood remitted under the said Notification.‑Sentence. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1990 Lahore 389 (PLP) (NASEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LAHORE and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik and M. Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptn., dated 8‑12‑1988, sub‑para.(h)‑‑ Announcement of certain measures by President of Pakistan for relief to the prisoners convicted by Military Courts ‑‑‑ While commuting the total period of imprisonment undergone by a convict, the period which he served as under‑trial prisoner shall also be considered ‑‑‑ Convict having remained in prison for a period of more than five years, and being more than sixty years of age on 8‑12‑1988, the Notification No. 8/15 of 1988 Ptns., dated 8‑12‑1988 was fully applicable to his case and the sentence, therefore, stood remitted under the said Notification.‑[Sentence]. Muhammad Akbar Tarar for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akbar Tarar for the Petitioner. Maqbool Elahi Malik and M. Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeks a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner who is confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore, forthwith.
2. The petitioner alongwith 17 others was accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 21 of 1979, dated 4th of March, 1979. He was tried by the Special Military Court No. 7, Gujranwala, and was sentenced to life imprisonment which sentence he is serving in the Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore. On 7th of December, 1988, the President of Pakistan announced certain measures for relief to the prisoners convicted by Military Courts. This Notification, inter alia, provides that the sentence of all prisoners who were above 60 years of age and have undergone imprisonment for five years, shall be remitted. The fact that the petitioner is more than sixty years of age has been admitted by the Assistant Superintendent of Jail on the basis of the record. It is also not denied that the petitioner has remained in prison for six years three months including the period of three years three months and nine days as an under‑trial prisoner.
3. The learned Advocate‑General has however, contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed benefit of period for which he remained under‑trial prisoner. This contention, however, has no force. It has been explained in sub para (h) of the Notification in question that in computing the total period of imprisonment undergone by a convict, the period which he served as, under‑trial prisoner shall be considered. There is thus no justification for denying the petitioner the benefit of sub‑para (h) of the Notification. The petitioner having remained in prison for a period of more than five years, and being more than sixty years of age on 8th of December, 1988, the Notification is fully applicable to his case and the sentence, therefore, stood remitted under the aforesaid Notification.
4. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted. The respondent is directed to release the petitioner from prison if not required in any other case. There is no order as to costs. M.B.A./N‑355/L Petition accepted.