' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to voice his grievance that the learned trial Court failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which reads as under:-- "Where a Court decides to pass a sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence, it "shall" take into consideration the period, if any, during which such accused was detained in custody for such offence."
' According to the learned counsel, section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Required trial Court to observe that the time spent by the petitioner as under trial prisoner would be counted while calculating the 14 years' imprisonment awarded to the petitioner/convict. However, the same was not observed by the learned trial Court. Unfortunately, the same point was not raised before the learned appellate Courts either.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was implicated in F.I.R. No,379/93, dated 23-6- 1993, under sections 302, 109 &34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, his trial was conducted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30-9-2000. The petitioner was awarded 14 years'
R.I. As Tazir and Diyat amounting to Rs,2,70,493/53, under section 308, P.P.C. His appeal, Criminal Appeal No,268-J/2000 was dismissed by this Court on 17-5-2001. Thereafter, Jail Petition No,85/2001 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19-10-2001. Before both the appellate Courts, neither request for concession under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was raised nor granted by the Courts.
3. In section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The word "may" was substituted with "shall" by Second Amendment Ordinance 71 of 1979, therefore, the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Have become now mandatory. The learned trial Court should have considered the same in favour of the petitioner. It is a continuing practice of this Court that where provisions of a law are not clearly defined, the benefit of doubt is given to an C accused person. Likewise, where two interpretations of law are possible, interpretation favoring the accused person is preferred. In view of the above, it is directed that period of petitioner spent as under trial prisoner be counted while calculating the whole period of 14 years' R.I. Awarded to him by the learned trial Court. In this contest, I may refer to 2000 SCM R 1655 and 2005, P.Cr.L.J 1776.
In view of the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is awarded to the petitioner.