Muhammad Suleman son of Bahi Khan has filed this Writ Petition against the impugned order dated 11-4-1994 of Superintendent, Central Jail, Mianwali. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Suleman convict was convicted in the following three cases:--
(a) Case: F.I.R. No,385 of 1990, under section 307, P.P.C., P.S. City Mianwali, sentenced to five years' R.I.
On 17-12-1990 by the learned Special Judge. S.TA. Sargodha, Benefits of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to him;
(b) Case: F.I.R. No,386 of 1990, under section 13/20/65, P.S. City Mianwali by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class sentenced him to two years' R.I. On 27-6-1992 with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and
(c) Case: F.I.R. No,152 of 1990, under section 13/20/65, P.S. City Mianwali. He was sentenced by a learned Magistrate 1st Class to two years' R.I. On 14-7-1992 with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' The petitioner entered jail as an undertrial prisoner on 30-9-1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that he was an undertrial prisoner from 30-9-1990 in each case up to the respective date of his conviction in each case. Learned counsel reiterates that in the first case under section 307, P.P.C. He was convicted on 17-12-1992, so he is entitled to the benefit of section 382B, Cr.P.0 from 30-9-1990 to 17-12-1990. In the second case, i,e, case: F.I.R. No,386/90 he was convicted on 27-6-1992. So, in this case although convicted in the earlier case but he remained as an undertrial in this case and convicted on 27-6-1992. He has to get benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.0 from 30-9-1990 as ordered by the Court.
2. In the third case (Case: F.I.R. No,152/90) he was convicted on 14-7-1992. Although a convict in the aforesaid two cases but was an undertrial in third case and he was entitled to aforesaid benefit from 30-9-1990 up to 14-7-1992.
3. Under section 382-B, Cr.P.0 as ordered by Courts learned counsel submitted that there is no bar in the statute that in numerous cases an under-trial as accused cannot take the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., if so directed by the trial Court. He further submits that if there are two interpretations of a provision of law, one in favour of the accused and other against him, the interpretation in favour of the accused is to be preferred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the preparation and has relied on the report and interpretation submitted by the Jail Authorities. On the ground that after his first conviction in first case, he became a convict for all intents and purposes and was not entitled to the benefits in other two cases.
5. The relevant provisions i,e, section 382-B, Cr.P.0 is reproduced:- "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."
6. It is clearly laid down in the law that the period of detention in custody for such offence is to be considered by the Court at the time of deciding that case and awarding the sentence. If an accused is involved in more than one cases, the period of detention in each case is to be considered at the time of awarding the sentence. It is nowhere laid down in the statute that once an undertrial is convicted in one case, he loses his right of the benefits under these provisions if he is convicted later on in other cases.
7. There is no force in the argument of the learned State Counsel which is hereby repelled. The correct interpretation of the provisions of the law is that if an accused person is undertrial and detention in more than one cases/offences and if he is convicted in one case, he remains an under trial for the purpose of this provision and he will be entitled to the benefit thereof if so ordered in each case. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted with the directions that the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.0 shall be given to him in all the three cases from the date of his custody i,e, 30-9-1990 to the date of his each conviction in all the three cases. There is no order as to costs.
8. Superintendent, Central Jail, Mianwali to act accordingly.
9. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Home Department, Punjab.