1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG. C J: --The only question falling for determination in this appeal is a legal question namely whether persons convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life can be allowed the benefit of section 382-B,.Cr.P.C. In the matter of computation of their sentence In the instant case, the learned Judge in the High Court expressed his inability to extend the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In view of the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Zulfiqar Ali v. The State PLD 1984 Lahore 461. However, this Court has been extending this benefit to persons awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life in several cases without, however, making any reference to the decision of the Lahore High Court in Zulfiqar Ali v. The State PLD 1984 Lahore 461.
2. Leave was, therefore, granted to consider the true interpretation of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. With a view to giving an authoritative pronouncement on the question whether persons convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded sentence of imprisonment for life can be extended the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C_?
3. In the meanwhile, however, the same question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Qadir and another v. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 142 and 143 of 1987--PLD 1991 SC 1065); two of us were Members of that Bench (viz. Nasim Hasan Shah and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ). In this case, it was held that the benefit was extendable under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Even in cases of life imprisonment. While arriving at this conclusion, it was, inter alia, observed: "Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Provides 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."
4. It may be noted that the mandatory provision has been introduced because of the realization that an accused person is entitled to be put to trial or released on bail. If he is not to be released on bail, he must be put to trial. If for any reason the State is unable to put him up for trial it is only fair that during the period he is detained to await his trial that period is taken into consideration in computing the sentence of imprisonment given to him. Another point to be noted is that the provision occurs in a criminal statute which requires strict construction as far as it imposes restrictions and punishments. Beneficial provisions need to be construed liberally. These are axiomatic principles.
5. Keeping the aforesaid in view, since the provision makes no distinction whether the sentence to be passed is for imprisonment for life or for shorter period, the benefit granted to an accused that the period during which he was detained in custody shall be taken into consideration need not be whittled down."
6. The Court went on to observe further:- "Secondly, the distinction drawn between a sentence of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a shorter period is rather specious. Imprisonment is imprisonment--whether for life or for a shorter period. This Court has consistently been granting benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To a convict sentenced for imprisonment for life in its ordinary criminal jurisdiction."
7. We are inclined to adhere to this exposition of the law and, accordingly, hold that the benefit under section 382-B, Cr. P.C. Can be I extended to the appellants in this case.
8. The result is that this appeal succeeds to the extent that the appellants shall be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In the matter of computation of the sentence of life imprisonment passed against them.