Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.--This judgment shall dispose of I.C.A. No, 384/2001, I.C.A. No, 349/2001, I.C.A.
No, 158/2001, W.P. 3658/2002, W.P. No, 13380/2001, W.P. No, 10507/2001, W.P. No, 12286/2003, W.P. No, 14203/2001 and W.P. No, 16137/2001 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.
2. The question in all the above cases release to remissions which were granted to the under-trials and convicts through various notifications because of the amnesty given by the President of Pakistan at the time of Golden Jubilee Celebration of Pakistan.
3. We have gone through the judgment with the help of the learned counsel for the appellants, the relevant portion of which is reflected in paragraph 10 is reproduced below :-- "The upshot of the discussion is that the grant of remission to Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 vide Notification dated 28.8.1997 to the extent of 1/5th of the total sentence, three months vide Notification dated 14.8.1996 by the President of Pakistan and Notification dated 28.4.1996 followed by another Notification dated 27.2.1997 granting two months' remission each by the Provincial Government is declared to be in-applicable and contrary to law, therefore, the same are set aside by partly accepting the writ petition. The benefit of these notifications shall not be extended or awarded by way of remissions to the imprisonment to which Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 were sentenced on 31.8.1998 by a competent Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. In the case of Haji Abdul Ali u. Haji Bismillah and 3 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 163) the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-8 was as follows:
5. "Under Section 3(3) of the Prisons Act, 1894 (Act IX of 1894), "convicted criminal prisoner" means any criminal prisoner under sentences of a Court or Court MartialUnder Rule 3 of the Prison Rules a convict means a convicted criminal prisoner under sentence of a Court. The legislature in its wisdom and in order to give more rational treatment of the pre-sentence period spent by a convict in jail enacted Section 382-B Cr.P.C. by promulgating the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The sentencing Court is required to take into consideration the period, if any, during which an accused is detained in custody for an offence. But there is nothing in Section 382-B Cr.P.C. or any other law to indicate that such a period is to be treated as convict from the very inception. Therefore, remissions granted by the President under Article 45 of the Constitution or the Provincial Government were not available to the petitioner for the period during which he had not been convicted of any offence nor was he undergoing any sentence. As regards the remission of 60 days granted by the Government of Balochistan on 5.1.2000, under Section 401, Cr.P.C. the High Court was quite correct in taking the view that the same was not permissible in view of Section 402-C Cr.P.C. as the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) PPC falling in Chapter XVI of P.P.C. The Lahore High Court has also expressed a similar view in the case of Inayat Bibi v. Amjad Ali and others (2001 P.Cr. L.J. 1435)."
5. The judgment in the case of Haji Abdul Ali v. Haji Bismillah and 3 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 163) covers the proposition we are to deal with today and it also refers to the judgment impugned of the learned Single Judge in paragraph-8 of the judgment where nothing is expressed in disapproval. We, therefore, are to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Bench and consequently the Intra Court appeals and writ petitions referred to above are disposed of accordingly.