Petitioner, in the instant case, was tried under section 302, P.P.C. In the case registered vide F.I.R.
No,40 dated 21-3-1993 under section 302, P.P.C., Police Station Darkhanwala, District Sargodha and vide judgment dated 17-10-1994 he was convicted under section 302, (b) P.P:C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a compensation of Rs,30,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The sentence was suspended by this Court on 7-4-1997 on statutory group but his appeal was dismissed on 12-12-1997 whereafter he was committed to judicial custody. During the currency of his period of suspension i,e, on 28th August, 1997, the Government of the Punjab issued Notification No.S0 (MP)14-1/97 conveying the order of the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to the following effect:-- "In exercise of powers under Article 45 of the Constitution, the President has been pleased to grant remission in the sentence on the occasion of Golden Jubilee Independence Day, 1997 as under:--
(a) Remission at 1/5th of the total sentence;
(b) total remission of the remaining sentence for the male prisoners who are 65 years of age or above and have undergone imprisonment for 10 years and above. This concession would not apply to the condemned prisoners;
(c) total remission of the remaining sentence for female prisoners who are 60 years of age or above and have undergone imprisonment for 10 years and above. This concession would not apply to the condemned prisoners.
The above remission would be admissible to prisoners undergoing sentence for offences other than espionage, subversion, gang-rape, bank dacoities and anti-State activities. The number of prisoners benefited in each category may be intimated at the earliest."
2. The issue raised in this petition is whether the petitioner-convict could be granted remissions in terms of the afore-referred notification during A the period when he was out of prison and his sentence had been suspended by this Court?
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 read with Rules 35, 38, 206 and 218 of the Prison Rules to contend that the petitioner is entitled to remissions even during the period he was out of prison as his sentence stood suspended.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, have gone through the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison Rules framed thereunder. A bare reading of the afore-referred provisions of law would indicate that it is not at all amenable to the construction which petitioner's learned counsel seeks to draw. Section 55 of the Prisons Act does not talk of petitioner's remaining out of the prison during the period when his sentence was suspended, therefore, the same is not relevant. Rule 206 of the Prison Rules specifically excludes the period the prisoners spent out of jail on account of temporary suspension of sentence by a Court order, from consideration for the purpose of remissions. Similarly Rules 35, 38 and 218 ibid have no nexus with the issue raised in this petition. For afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.