MUHAMMAD UMAR alias UMRI vs THE STATE
This jail petition arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentences for offenses including Qatl-e-Amd and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the trial and appellate courts erred in denying the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates the consideration of pre-trial detention period toward the sentence, without providing reasons for such denial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts failed to grant this benefit or justify its refusal. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that unless exceptional circumstances exist and are explicitly recorded by the court to justify denial, an accused is entitled to have the period of detention during trial adjusted against the sentence awarded. The Court emphasized that the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. should be extended as a matter of course absent specific, valid reasons for withholding it.
- Is a trial court required to record reasons if it denies the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused?
- Can the Supreme Court grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the lower courts failed to consider it?
- Under what circumstances should the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be denied to an accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- This jail petition arises out of judgment dated 1-4-2005 delivered by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner in the following terms were upheld:--- "Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C., life imprisonment and compensation of Rs,50,000 or in default 6 months' S.I. Each.
' Under sections 324/149, P.P. C . 10 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,5,000 or in default 3 months' S.I. Each.
' Under sections 452/149, P.P.C. Four years' R.I. And fine of Rs,1,000 or in default one month's S.I. Each.
' Under sections 452/149, P.P.C. One year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default one month's S.I.
Each.
' Under sections 149, P.P.C., one year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default one month's S.I. Each."
2. Consequent upon registration of F.I.R. No,76 of 2000, Police . Station Qabula, District Pakpattan Sharif under sections 302/324/ 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/452/148/149, P.P.C., the petitioner along with ten other accused persons were tried for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and attempting to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Ghulam Farid and Rashid Ali. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as reproduced above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the case of Ghulam Murtaza v. The State PLD 1998 SC 152 has raised agrievance that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has denied the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the petitioner without recording any. Reasons. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General was unable to controvert the above position.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab and examining the judgment passed by the trial Court and the learned High Court, we find that neither the petitioner has been granted the benefit admissible under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Nor reasons have been recorded for denial thereof. In case of Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (supra) this Court has held as under:--- "In the case of Liaquat Ali v. The State PLD 1995 SC 485 the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court considered the effect of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And came to the conclusion that where the Courts below have omitted to consider grant of concession of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the accused, the same benefit can be extended by this Court.
' From the preceding precedent it appears that unless there are any exceptional circumstances in a case which the Court considers sufficient for the purpose of denying the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the accused, the Court in all other cases while awarding sentence, will take into consideration the period during which the accused remained in detention during his trial, and this period will normally be adjusted in the sentence awarded to the accused by allowing him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
5. On examination of the facts of the case, we have not discovered any exceptional circumstance in the case in hand warranting denial of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the petitioner. We accordingly, while granting leave convert it into appeal, allow the same and direct that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.