ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Muhammad Ismaeel has challenged, the legality and propriety of order No. SO (R & P) 4-5/2008 (P-11) 5273, Government of the Punjab, Home Department dated Lahore the 11th of July, 2013 whereby respondents No. 5 & 6 alongwith other condemned prisoners were accorded conditional release on parole.
2. Succinctly facts necessary for disposal of instant Constitutional petition are that respondents No. 4 & 5 had been convicted and sentenced to capital sentence in case F.I.R. No. 01, dated 02.01.2004, registered at the instance of present petitioner under Sections 302 & 34, PPC at Police Station, City Muzaffargarh vide judgment dated 14.04.2005: Their sentence was converted to imprisonment for life by this Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2010, which was upheld by august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 18.05.2011. Both respondents No. 5 & 6 had been confined in jail to undergo the afore-mentioned sentence. The jail authorities processed the case of respondents No. 5 & 6 having fulfilled the conditions for their release on parole under The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 (Punjab Act X of 1926) and approved their release on parole vide impugned order dated 11.07.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner being complainant of the afore- mentioned case, had challenged its legality through this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 2 of The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 the provisions of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 shall have overriding effect. It is further contended that respondents No. 5 & 6 were hardened and desperate criminals, as such they did not fall under the requirements and conditions for their release on probation specified under the law.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State has supported the impugned order.
5. Contrarily, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions stating that respondent No. 1 was quite competent to release respondents No. 5 & 6 under The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 and perused the record.
7. Respondents No. 5 & 6 had been approved to be released on probation by the competent authority under Section 2 of The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 vide afore- mentioned impugned order after fulfilment of all the conditions required under the said section. For ready reference Section 2 of the Act /bid is reproduced as under:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where a person is confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the [Provincial Government] from his antecedents or his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead useful and industrious life, if he is released from prison, the [Provincial Government] may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision of authority of a [servant of the State] or ,a secular institution or of a person or society professing the same religion as the prisoner, named in the licence and willing to take charge of him.''
Bare perusal of the Section ibid shows that the conditions precedent for release of a prisoner are that he was confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment and it should appear from his antecedent or conduct in the prison that he was likely to abstain from criminal activities.
8. Respondents No. 5 & 6 alongwith others had been directed to be released on parole on the condition to be placed under the supervision or authority of the Probation Officer. Probation is given to an offender by the judiciary under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance No. XLV of 1960) whereas parole is authorized to the executive under Section 2 of The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926. Probation and parole both serve the purpose of rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders.
9. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 relates to the power of the Provincial Government to suspend or remit the sentence awarded to an offender. Admittedly, the sentence of respondents No. 5 & 6 had neither been suspended nor remitted by the Provincial Government and respondent No. 1 being competent authority, after fulfilment of all the codal formalities as required under the Act ibid, had issued the impugned order. It is not a case of suspension or remittance of the sentence rather custody, of respondents No. 5 & 6 had been shifted from jail authorities to the Probation Officer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out even a single instance showing that the impugned order had been issued in favour of respondents No. 5 & 6 without serving out the mandatory period of substantive sentence as required under the Act ibid and Rules framed thereunder in 1964.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is without any force, the same stands dismissed.