Remissions

Such accused cannot be given remission under the laws of Pakistan for the period of his sentence served abroad prior to his transfer to Pakistan.

Petitioner was convicted by Trial Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and his grievance was that benefit of remissions was denied to him

Validity

Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 was published on 15-8-2001 in this Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I; case against petitioner was registered prior to the promulgation of Amending Ordinance

Registration of F.I.R. was prior in time, as such, provisions of Amending Ordinance could not be applied to the case of petitioner retrospectively

Law existed at the time of registration of F.I.R. was to be applicable to the case of petitioner who was entitled for remissions

High Court directed the authorities to grant remissions to petitioner under the law prevailing at the time of registration of the case

Constitutional Petition was allowed in circumstances.

"Equality" meant that among equal the law should be equal and equally administered and that the like should be treated alike

Principle of "equal treatment" was applicable to prisoners

Constitution did not permit unequal treatment among prisoners and there had to be one set of Rule for every convict under law, though the forum of punishment was different and more stringent under different law but after conviction the convicts should be governed under the Prison Rules

By mere change of forum one set of convict could not be entitled for remission

State did not make any classification of prisoners to deprive them from Fundamental Rights

Where certain group of persons were denied benefit of privilege or other group was allowed, such was discrimination between the person or things similarly situated and consequently was void on account of provisions of Art. 25(1) of the Constitution

High Court directed the authorities to include all remissions to the sentence of petitioner which had been denied to him

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Special remission was granted by the President of Pakistan in exercise of his powers under Art. 45 of the Constitution, whereby death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life for those convict who were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence

Authorities declined extension of such benefit of remissions to petitioner and referred the matter to the President of Pakistan to reconsider his mercy petition

Validity

After setting a proper law into motion and going through the entire exercise with regard to analysis of juvenility of petitioner, it was unjust for authorities to keep on restricting uniform benefit of law as well as law to all similarly placed persons, on one excuse or the other

Juvenile status of petitioner at the time of commission of offence was not under question and legal heirs of victim pardoned the petitioner, therefore, giving benefit of same legislative intent to other similarly placed accused was not denied

International legislation and domestic legislation imposed a clear bar on inflicting death penalty on an accused under the age of eighteen years

Claim of petitioner to seek a benefit which otherwise was fully available to him under the policy having force of law, could not have been denied by authorities at their level and no legislation could compel them to still refer the matter to the President of Pakistan for consideration merely on the ground that earlier mercy petition had been dismissed by the President

Age of juvenility was already assessed by Trial Court as required under S.7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, instead of sending the matter to Trial Court for re-examination / re-evaluation of age of petitioner, commuted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed insertion of S. 21F in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sought the same to be struck down from the statute as the same was harsh for convicts

Validity

Rise in terrorist acts in Pakistan from year 1997 up to 15-8-2001 when S.21 F was incorporated in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, prompted the legislature to make the amendment for deterrent purposes

Whether or not denial of remission was harsh for convicts under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not for High Court to pass judgment on such issue and was within the domain of legislature; it was the legislature in its own wisdom, reasons, aims and objectives in inserting S. 21F in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Despite insertion of S. 21F in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, over 18 years ago, none of the three successive democratically elected legislatures deemed it fit to remove S. 21F from Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was an indication that successive legislature were satisfied that S. 21F was justified in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Provision of S. 21F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not violate Arts. 4, 12, 13 or 25 of the Constitution and High Court upheld the provision of S. 21F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court, however, directed Anti-Terrorism Courts to exercise great care and caution in determining whether cases before them fell under Anti-Terrorism Act,1997, based on the requirements of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as remissions were not applicable in cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which concerned heinous offences having a special object and intent aimed at destabilizing the State and its institutions and cowering it citizens through installing in them a sense of fear and insecurity

In absence of ingredients of S. 6(1)(b) & (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, cases were to be tried under ordinary criminal law

Provisions of S.6(1)(b) & (c) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were pre-conditions which needed to be satisfied before S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could be attracted by virtue of the offences set out in S.6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Unlike offences of corruption where there are numerous laws dealing with offences of corruption, it cannot be said that persons are treated differently in terms of remission if they are convicted for offences of terrorism since there is only one act namely Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for which an accused can be proceeded with if his offence meets the definition of "terrorism"

Persons who are convicted of acts of terrorism are of the same class and are treated the same in terms of remission

No remission is allowed to such accused and there is no question of any person who is convicted for an offence of terrorism under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and is treated differently.

Every one convicted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is dealt in the same way in accordance with the law as provided in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, including its S.21-F

Provision of S.21F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is not violative of Art. 4 of the Constitution.

Such accused is only punished for one offence and question of availability of remission is governed by law and is a matter of concession not as of right

Issue of self-incrimination is not relevant in circumstances.

Provision of Art.12(b) of the Constitution has no relevance in cases where a person is given a sentence prescribed under the law at the time when he committed the offence and whether remission was available or not under the statute for the offence which he committed

Provision of S.21F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is not violative of Art.12 of the Constitution.

Plea raised by petitioner was that occurrence took place prior to insertion of S. 21-F in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, he was entitled to benefit of remissions

Validity

Law prevalent at the time of commission of crime would hold the field and provisions of S. 21-F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not contain anything showing intention of the Legislature that the provisions would be applicable to cases retrospectively

Although petitioner was convicted and sentenced after promulgation of S. 21-F, of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, yet he would be entitled for benefits which were made available to him at the time when crime was committed by petitioner

Jail authorities wrongly denied right and benefits to petitioner, so the same needed to be corrected

High Court directed jail authorities to grant petitioner remissions which were admissible to him and release him from the custody, if he had completely served out his sentence awarded by Trial Court

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was convicted under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and his grievance was that he was entitled to special remission under Rule 216 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978

Validity

Policy of remissions formulated and issued by Punjab Government on 27-1-1993, did not offend any clause of the Constitution or any provision of law

Order passed by authorities declining special remissions to petitioner being convict/prisoner under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner who was convicted for espionage and anti-State activities, sought remissions under S.212 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, for donating blood

Validity

Even if anything was contained in Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, even then provisions of rule 201 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, would prevail

Person convicted under the charge of espionage and anti-State activities would not be entitled to ordinary and special remission unless Federal Government or Provincial Government or competent authorities made a specific order in writing in that behalf and provisions of rule 212 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, were excluded

In view of special embargo contained in Rule 201-A of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, petitioner was not entitled for remissions as contained in Rule 212 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.