MASAL KHAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a jail petition filed by the petitioners, who were convicted under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The Peshawar High Court had previously dismissed their appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel abandoned arguments on the merits of the conviction and instead requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the computation of their sentence for the period spent as under-trial prisoners. The State did not oppose this request. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedent, converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it to the extent of granting the petitioners the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that prisoners are entitled to the benefit of the period spent in custody during the trial, modifying the High Court's judgment accordingly.
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of the period spent as an under-trial prisoner under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to grant the benefit of sentence remission?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners were tried in case F.I.R. No,485, dated 1-8-2003, registered at Police Station Chamkani, District Peshawar and were convicted under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. They were sentenced to 7 years' R.I. Each, vide judgment dated 20-5-2004, passed by the trial Court. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dismissed their Jail Criminal Appeal No,419 of 2004, vide judgment, dated 10-9-2004. Hence, this Jail Petition No,345 of 2005 for leave to appeal.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel representing the petitioners stated that he would not press this petition on merits but would seek the indulgence of this Court for the grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghulam Murtaza v. The State PLD 1998 SC 152.
3. The learned counsel for the State has no objection thereto.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is partly allowed by condoning the delay. The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellants/petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. For the period they remained under-trial prisoners. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.