SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, it is prayed that respondent No,1/ Superintendent, Central Jail, Gujranwala be directed to release the petitioner from the jail forthwith.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the remissions in the sentence awarded to the petitioner are not being granted to him by the jail authorities on the ground that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 21-F of the Act bars the grant of remissions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the cases of "Shah Hussain v. The State"
(PLD 2009 Supreme Court 460), "M. Aslam Mouvia v. Home Secretary and others" (PLD 2011 Lahore 323) and 'Abdul Qadir Tawakkal v. The State" (PLD 2013 Sindh 481) submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 09.05.2000 at which time the provisions of section 21-F of the Act were not promulgated, so the said provisions of law cannot be applied retrospectively rather the law prevailing at the time of commission of offence would be applied to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner would be entitled for the remissions.
4. The learned Law Officer has opposed this proposition of law and submitted that after promulgation of law, the remissions were rightly refused to the petitioner by the jail authorities.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case law minutely.
6. The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No,144 dated 09.05.2000 registered under sections 365-A, 324, 109, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and after facing trial therein, vide judgment dated 15.08.2002, he was convicted under sections 344/34, P.P.C. With rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs,20,000/- and in"default of the same, to suffer two years'
R.I; under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,20,000/-, in default whereof to suffer two years' R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the petitioner. As per petitioner, he is languishing in the jail since 2000.
After the promulgation of section 21-F of the Act, admissible remissions were not granted to the petitioner. In this connection, the provisions of section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 have been examined and it is found that the same were inserted in the statute book on 15.08.2001 i.e, the time when the trial of the petitioner was in progress. The tenor of the cases of Muhammad Aslam Mouvia and Abdul Qadir Tawakkal is that the law enforced at the time of commission of crime shall be taken into consideration while awarding benefits to a person who has been convicted and sentenced. Same is the position in the civil jurisdiction and it was held by the Privy Council in the case of "Colonial Sugar Mills 1906 (A.C.) 307" that the law prevalent at the time of accrual of the right to a person shall govern his subsequent proceedings launched on the basis of that right. In the case of Muhammad Aslam Mouvia and Abdul Oaidr Tawakkal, it has been observed by the learned Division Benches the same proposition of law as was discussed in the Colonial Sugar Mills's case. It has validly been observed by this Court as well as by the learned Court from Sindh jurisdiction that the law prevalent at the time of commission of crime would hold the field and that the provisions of section 21-F of the Act do not contain anything showing the intention of the legislature that the provisions would be applicable to the cases retrospectively. Although, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced after the promulgation of above said provisions of law but he would be entitled for the benefits which were made available to him at the time when the crime was committed by the petitioner. The jail authorities have wrongly denied the right and benefits to the petitioner, so the same needs to be corrected.
7. For the reasons stated above, the petition in hand is accepted and the jail authorities are directed to grant the petitioner the remissions which are admissible to him and release the petitioner from the custody, if he has completely served out his sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The petition in these terms has succeeded.