1987 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 382‑B‑‑Benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. means that the period of detention suffered by an under trial prisoner during the trial is to be treated as apart of substantive sentence. M. Saleem Shaikh for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam Uns for the State. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1986. FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, J.‑‑The appellant in this case was found in possession of fifty grams of Heroin in the Departure Lounge of Islamabad International Airport. He was detected by Mr. Khalid Rashid Chaudhry, Inspector, Narcotics Joint Task Force, Rawalpindi. He lodged report under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order) against the appellant and sent him up for trial.

2. The appellant was tried by Mr. Muhammad Zaman Khan, Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who framed charge under Article 4 of the said Order and read it over to the appellant on 17‑12‑1985.

3. He pleaded not guilty in the first instance, but during the trial, on 2‑7‑1986 he gave statement in writing saying that he was found in possession of fifty grams of Heroin and that he is guilty of the offence he has been charged with. On this statement in writing of the appellant, the learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to R.I. for 25 months, whipping numbering two stripes and fine of Rs.100 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month, by his judgment, dated 3‑7‑1986. The learned Judge also gave benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. to the appellant. Mr. M. Saleem Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued the case only to the extent of propriety of the sentence. The facts of the case show that the appellant was in possession of fifty grams of Heroin and the minimum punishment for this offence is according to proviso 2 to Article 4 of the said Order, is two years, plus whipping and fine. It is evident that the appellant has been awarded almost the minimum sentence. We, therefore, do not think that the quantum of the sentence requires any interference.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further states that in spite of the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. having been given by the trial Court, the jail authorities are not treating the period of detention suffered by the appellant during the trial towards the sentence. We, therefore, hereby clarify that the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. means that the period of detention suffered by an under trial prisoner during the trial is to be treated as a part of substantive sentence. With this observation we dismiss the appeal. M.B.A./332/Sh.F Appeal dismissed.