1. NAIMUDDIN, J.-This is a Constitution Petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 304 (1), P.P.C. And sentenced to R. I.
2. For four years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I for six months by the Sessions Judge, Larkaqa, by the judgment dated 7th December, 1980. By the present petition the petitioner seeks benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Which reads as follows :- ---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.--- From the judgment it does not appear that the above provisions were taken into consideration while passing the aforesaid sentence. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit A of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. And the benefit thereof should be allowed to him by allowing the adjustment of the period for which he was detained in custody.
3. Mr. Hasan Akbar learned Assistant Advocate-General is present and waives notice of this petition..
4. He, however, submits that this petition under Article 9 is not maintainable as it is directed against the Province of Sind, the Inspector-General of Prisons, Sind and the Superintendent. Central Prison, Sukkur. It is true that this petition is misconceived as under section 382-B, Cr. P. C. It is the Court which passes the sentence that is required to take the period during which the petitioner was detained in custody for the offence, into consideration, and not the respondents.
5. Since however, the petition has been preferred from Jail and it bears the thumb impression of the petitioner which makes us believe that the petitioner is ignorant person, we therefore, while upholding objection of tire learned Assistant Advocate-General, convert this petition into one under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Following Saleh v. Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad (1): However, on merits learned Assistant Advocate --General concedes that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. But he submits that he is not sure whether the period claimed by the petitioner is correct or not. We therefore, allow this petition/application and direct the Superintendent, Central Prison, Sukkur, where the petitioner is presently stated to be lodged to allow the petitioner benefit of the period for which the petitioner remained in custody for the offence for which he has-been convicted, before his conviction.