' Briefly stated the facts are that on the statement of Nazar Hussain P.W.2 complaint Exh.PF was lodged under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Against Abdul Hameed, Sameeh Ullah and Munawar. After usual investigation, the case was sent up to the Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan and Bahawalpur Divisions at Multan. Vide Judgment dated 1-8-1995, all the aforementioned accused were convicted by the trial Court under section 392, P.P.C. And were sentenced to suffer R.I.
For ten years each and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 each or in default to undergo R.I. For two years each.
They were further convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And were sentenced to R.I. For three years each and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For one year each. The said judgment was assailed by filing Criminal Appeal SC(T) No,16 of 1995 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 15-4-1997.
2. The petitioners Abdul Hameed and Sameeh Ullah filed application with the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur and requested him to award the remissions granted by the Government vide notifications issued from time to 'me. However, their request was not accepted and as such they have approached this Court through the instant Constitutional writ petition.
3. Comments of respondent No, 1 have been called, submitted and have been perused.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are entitled to special remissions in sentences granted by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time, that the offences under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Do not fall within the category of the offences to which the said remissions are not applicable. He, thus, submitted that writ petition be accepted and respondent No,1 be directed to grant the remissions allowed to the petitioners vide notifications issued by the Government from time to time.
6. Conversely the stand of the learned State counsel is that as the offence charged pertains to bank dacoity, so the petitioners are not entitled to the remissions claimed by them. He has also referred to Notification dated 28-8-1997, whereby the remissions have not been extended to accused of bank dacoities.
7. The accused/petitioners have been convicted and sentenced under section 392, P. P.0 . Read with section 411, P.P.C. The offence of robbery has been defined in section 390, P.P.C. And is punishable under section 392, P.P.C. The offence of dacoity has been defined in section 391, P.P.C.
And is punishable under section 395, P.P.C. Admittedly both the petitioners have been charged for the commission of offence under section 392, P.P.C. Read with section 411, P.P.C. They have not been either charged or convicted under section 395, P.P.C. This being the factual position, the remission which is admissible to an accused/convict of an offence under section 392, P.P.C. Has to be extended to him. The mere fact that instant occurrence relates to a bank does not mean that offence charge and proved against the accused/petitioners falls under section 395, P.P.C. And not under section 392, P.P.C.
8. Since the accused/petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court which judgment has been confirmed by the appellate Court, so they are entitled to the remissions granted to them by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time.
9. It may also be mentioned here that vide judgments referred above, besides the present petitioners, Munawar has also been convicted and sentenced under section 392, P . P.C. Read with section 411, P. P .0 . Although Munawar is not petitioner before this Court, yet he is entitled to the same concession/remissions which are admissible to the present petitioners. Accordingly, instant petition is accepted and respondent No,1 is directed to grant remissions to the present petitioners as well as to Munawar who is also a convict of the same judgments referred above.