Remission
Remission legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Meaning explained.
Accused did not question the conviction awarded to him by NAB court, but he argued that if pre-conviction and post-conviction remissions were included, he had already served more than 16-1/2 years
According to accused, he had completed the entire sentence; and deserved his release from jail forthwith
Superintendent Central Prison, had failed to calculate proper remission; and accused had also been deprived of the entitlement of remission for the era of his pre-conviction
Accused had already served out more than 16 years conviction; and had the Jail authorities calculated the remission properly, accused would have been released much earlier
Maintaining the conviction of accused, Superintendent of Central Prison, was directed to calculate the remission; and if on awarding the remission in accordance with Chapter 8 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, it was found that accused had already served 15 years sentence, he would be released forthwith, in circumstances.
"Remission", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952838
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Remission"
P L D 1968 Lahore 120
Mst. NATHU‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Prisons Act (IX of 1894)---S. 59(5), (21)‑Remissions of Sentences Rules, 1965, rr. 19, 20 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 401‑Remissions under r. 20 on public rejoicings are independent of remissions under other rules and have to be added to such other remissions‑Remissions under r. 20 are unaffected by limitation placed on period of remissions of life convicts‑Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4173 of 1966 ref.P L D 1989 Karachi 7
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another — Respondents
Court: ---Rr. 212, 213 & 215--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Petitioner challenging his detention in jail after spending specified period therein on basis of benefit of remission--Authority disputing such claim of the petitioner--Different calculations made by petitioner and Authority as to period of time to be undergone in jail by petitioner--Question of calculation of sentence to be completed by petitioner, being g. disputed question of fact could not be gone into in Constitutional petition as Constitutional jurisdiction was extraordinary jurisdiction which could not be invoked for deciding question of fact as same might require recording of evidence.-Sentence.P L D 1977 Lahore 44
MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, KOT LAKHPAT‑ Respondent
Court: ‑‑ R. 11(2)‑Presumption‑Change in prisoner's task duly entered in history ticket‑Prisoner presumed to have been informed or have known such change in task‑Prisoner not making any representation to authorities in matter‑Presumed to have impliedly acquiesced Question of validity of change in task in circumstances, held, could not be gone into in writ petition.‑Writ.1999 P Cr
GHULAM HYDER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through
Court: QuettaP L D 1968 Lahore 1057
Mian FAZAL HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus (1) THE HOME SECRETARY, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, WEST PAKISTAN,
Court:P L D 1977 Lahore 629
LT.-GENERAL (RID.) K. M. AZHAR KHAN-petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, KOT LAKHPAT JAIL, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
Court:P L D 2019 Peshawar 211
ABDUL WAHAB and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Home Secretary Civil Secretariat and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1994 Peshawar 202
IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad
Court:P L D 1978 Lahore 15
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB. LAHORE
Court: S. 57 (as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)1 read with Punjab Jail Manual, para. 34(d)-Commutation of sentence-Retrospectivity of Legislation-Words "shall be deemed" in para. 34(d)Mean to apply order of commutation of sentence since date of sentence retrospectively-Amendment in S. 57 introduced by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972-Not retrospective in effect.-Sentence-Interpretation of statutes.1988 P Cr
GHULAM SHABBIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SIND and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi