' The petitioner Muhammad Saleem son of Umar Din was tried on a charge under section 302, P.P.C.
In case F.I.R. No,112/82, dated 31-3-1982 registered with Police Station Kamoke for the murder of Safdar Hussain and the trial Court vide judgment, dated 15th February, 1984 convicted him under section 302. P.P.C. And sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine; on appeal, his conviction was maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court and petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
2. The trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court; while maintaining conviction and sentence did not allow the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the petitioner; hence the petitioner has moved an application through Jail that benefit of section 382-B,. Cr.P.C. For the period 1-4-1982 to 15-2-1984 be extended to him to which he is entitled under the law.
3. The learned counsel for the State contended that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. At this stage could not be extended in the presence of earlier pronouncement made by the High Court as well by the Supreme Court wherein the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has not been extended to the petitioner.
4. In case Liaqat Ali v. The State PLD 1995 SC 485 while elaborating section' 382-B, Cr.P.C.; their Lordships observed that "it is quite clear from the language of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. That while passing sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence; the trial Court is bound to take into consideration the period if any during which the accused was detained in custody for such offence.
5. In case Amjad and another v. The State 1992 SCM R 2072 the trial Court; like case in hand had omitted to extend the benefit of section 3g2-B, Cr.P.C. Without noticing any features in the case justifying such denial to the accused; the Supreme Court extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Though the appeal was dismissed.
6. Similarly in case reported as Qadir and another v. The State PLD 1991 SC 1065, it was held that even in cases where the accused is sentenced for imprisonment for life the provision of section 382, Cr.P.C. Are also applicable.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. At this stage could not be extended in the presence of superior Court's judgment is misconceived as such an order extending benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To convict is neither alteration of the judgment nor reviewing the same; such orders in fact are passed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To give effect to the legal preposition in view of the dictum laid down by their Lordships in case Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1995 SCM R 1525; wherein giving principles as to how the sentencing Court can give effect to the legislative intent expressed in words "shall take into consideration in section 382-B, Cr.P.C." observed; where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised and the Court will require it to be exercised.
8. It was also observed in case Qadir and another v. The State PLD 1991 SC 893 that the provisions being mandatory makes no distinction whether sentence to be passed is for imprisonment for life or for a 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.
9. In the present case, I find that neither the trial Court nor the learned Judge of the High Court pointed out any circumstances which would justify the denial of extension of benefit of section 382-B. Cr.P.C. To the petitioner.
10. In the circumstances, discussed above, the prayer is granted and the petitioner be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The Jail Authorities are directed to make necessary computation in this behalf without any further delay.