1. This Constitutional petition has been filed seeking direction that respondent No.1/Superintendent Jail be asked to compute the period of sentence after allowing the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. As awarded by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore to the petitioner's husband Samuel Shad.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner's husband Samuel Shad was arrested on 17-1-1985 in case F.I.R. No.11 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Lahore on 11-3-1980 under section 430/409/471/419, P.P.C.
4. Alongwith another case registered vide F.I.R. No.57/79 at the same police station under section 420/468/471/109, P.P.C.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in case F.I.R. No. 57 he was convicted under section 468, P.P.C.
6. And was sentenced to 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2 lacs or in default to undergo R.I. For 1-1/2 years by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore vide its judgment dated 14-6-1989. The Court also awarded the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the accused. Subsequently the Court vide its order dated 25-11-1989 convicted the accused under section 419, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No.1l/80 and sentenced him to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further undergo 6 months' R.I. He was also convicted under section 471/109, P.P.C. And was sentenced to two years' R.I.
7. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also given the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that in spite of the specific order by the learned Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore, respondent No.1 is denying the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To petitioner's husband Samuel Shad.
9. Respondent No.1/Superintendent Jail, in his comments has admitted the aforesaid position.
10. However, it has been argued that since Samuel Shad was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. In case registered vide F.I.R. No.57/79 decided on 14-6-1989, the same period cannot be counted twice in calculating the period of his detention in subsequent case registered vide F.I.R. No.11/80, decided on 25-11-1989. It is respondent's case that after computing the period of his detention Samuel Shad was released on 10-9-1989 and was detained as an under trial prisoner in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 11/80 in which he was initially arrested on 17-1-1985. On this basis it is argued that convict Samuel Shad now would only be entitled to the period spent by him as under- trial prisoner after his release on 10-9-1989. The main argument advanced on behalf of respondent is that since his earlier period spent as under-trial prisoner has already been counted from his initial arrest on 17-1-1985 till his conviction in case registered vide F.I.R. No.57/79 decided on 13-6- 1989, the same benefit cannot be counted again in case F.I.R. Nn.11 /80.
12. I have considered the contentions of both the parties. Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Provides 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."
13. It is not denied that convict Samuel Shad was arrested in F.I.R. No.1l/80 alongwith other case on 17- 1-1985 and the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the same has also appended remand order granted by Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore to substantiate this stance. This factum has also not been controverted by learned Law Officer. The law has only provided that the period spent by the accused in custody respecting the offence would be taken into consideration.
14. Since the detention of Samuel Shad in case registered vide F.I.R. No.1l/80 was never suspended and remained in operation from the time of his initial arrest on 17-1-1985, it cannot be said at this stage that this period cannot be counted while computing the period of his sentence. The learned Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore has given him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. After conscious application of mind. Respondent No. l/Superintendent Jail is nobody to deny him that benefit. The refusal on his part to implement the judgment of the Special Court (Offences in Banks)
15. Lahore in its letter and spirit is without lawful authority. Accordingly I direct respondent No.1/Superintendent Jail to grant the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To convict Samuel Shad in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 11/80 as awarded by the learned Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore vide its judgment dated 25-11-1989. In peculiar facts of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs.
16. S.A./R-254/L