This Constitutional petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by Mst. Parveen, wife of Gul Rehman, the detenu, detained at Central Jail, Peshawar. The detenu had furnished bail bonds as sureties in a number of cases in different Courts in Nowshera. In 13 of such cases the accused released on bail absconded and, therefore, proceedings under Section 514 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner by different Courts on different dates. Since the detenu were unable to pay the penalty imposed in any of the cases, he was imprisoned for various terms on different dates.
The Superintendent Central Jail Peshawar, had on the direction of this Court furnished the details of the cases in which the detenu has been detained and the dates of imposition of the penalties and the probable dates of release in each case. The period of detention in 8 of these cases had expired whereas in the remaining 5 cases the detention period has yet to be completed the probable date of release of the detenu, is 30.6.2000.
2.The main point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the detenue had been wrongfully withheld remissions under jail manual as well as those granted to prisoners by the President of Pakistan in exercise of his powers under Article 45 of the Constitution. He also objected to the treatment by the Jail authorities of the various period of detention consecutively and not concurrently.
3.We take up the question of remissions, first. In all the cases the detenue has been detained in pursuance to the order passed under sub-Section 4 of Section 514 Cr.P.C. The said provision provides for imprisonment in the civil Jail. There is no mention of civil jail in the Prisoners Act 1894, the Prisoners Act 1900 or the Prison Rules. However, prisoners imprisoned under Section 514 Cr.P.C. have been expressly categorized as civil prisoners under Rule 402 (ii) of the Prison Rules. Rule 199 of the Prison Rules defines remission system, as "an arrangement by which a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment whether by one sentence or by consecutive sentencesbecomes eligible for release when a portion of his sentence has yet to run". Thus remission under the jail manual ran only' be granted to prisoners undergoing sentence of imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner had produced copies of the orders of the grant of special remissions by the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution. There too remissions have been granted in the sentences.
The question, therefore, is whether imprisonment under Section 514 (4) Cr.P.C. is a sentence.
Sentence has not been defined either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Pakistan Penal Code, the latter only provides the list of punishment under Section 57 of the Code. When under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate, and under Section 265-H (2), the Sessions Judge, finds an accused guilty, shall pass a sentence upon him according to law. The sentence thus follows and is consequent upon, conviction. In the case of Mahabir Sing vs. Emperor (AIR (3) 1944 Calcutta 17) the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court defined sentence to mean "a direction by which a punishment is prescribed and meted out to a person who has been convicted of an offence". It thus follows that imprisonment as sentence is imposed only on convicts. No doubt imprisonment has been included in the list of punishments under Section 57 PPC, but not all imprisonments are punishments. For example under Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure the executing Court may order the judgment-debtor to suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year in the execution of a decree. Such imprisonment cannot be termed as punishment within the meaning of Section 57 PPC. Since the order of imprisonment under Section 514(4) is not made in consequence of conviction it cannot be termed as sentence. Resultantly, a prisoner imprisoned by order under Section 514 (4) Cr.P.C. is not entitled to the benefited from the remissions granted either under the Prison Rules or by the order of the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution.
4. The Jail Authorities have been treating the periods of detention of the detenu in the 13 cases consecutively, with the result that the detenu is not due for release until 30.6.2006. Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless ordered by the Court otherwise, a person sentenced to imprisonment in more than one case one after the other, the sentences shall run consecutively.
There is no specific provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prison Rules providing as to whether the period of imprisonment, not being sentences, imposed in more than one case one after another shall be treated consecutively or concurrently. It appears that the jail authorities had been applying the Rule in Section 397 Cr.P.C. to imprisonments other than imprisonment by way of sentences. We do not consider this to be the correct view. Orders of the Court take effect from the date they are announced, unless stated otherwise. It was probably for this reason that provisions were made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, under Sections 35 and 397, which provided for the running of the sentence of imprisonment consecutively, unless otherwise directed, where the accused is convicted of more than one offence at the same trial or in different trials, one after another. In the absence of any specific statutory provision providing for the consecutive running of periods of imprisonment in different cases, other than imprisonment as sentence, each order imposing the imprisonment shall take effect from the date the order is made. In this view of the matter such period of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
5. In the light of the above discussion while holding that the detenu is not entitled to the remissions we direct that his periods of imprisonment in the cases that he has been detained under orders made under Section 514(4) Cr.P.C. shall be considered to run concurrently. According to the chart provided to us by the Superintendent Central Prison Peshawar giving details of the various orders passed by the Court under which the detenu has been detained and the period of imprisonment in each of these cases, in 5 cases the period of detention has yet to expire on the basis that the periods of imprisonment were considered to run consecutively. In four of these cases the period of imprisonment imposed is six months each and one month in one case. The date of the order in the earliest of these cases is 4.6.2003 and the last is dated 14.4.2004. Taking the period of imprisonment concurrently, the last period of imprisonment of 6 months by order dated 14.4.2004 also now stands expired. From this point of view the detenu has already undergone the period of imprisonment. On this score the writ petition is allowed and Respondent No, 3 is directed to set the detenu Gul Rehman at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.