Munir Ahmed And Other vs The State
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by a convict seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had not been explicitly addressed in the court's previous judgment dated 25.10.2011. The core legal question was whether the court is required to grant the benefit of the period of detention served during trial when sentencing a convict, and whether the absence of reasons for denying this benefit implies its grant. The Federal Shariat Court held that Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, uses the mandatory word 'shall,' requiring the court to consider the period of detention served by an accused during the investigation and trial. The court established the principle that if a sentencing court does not provide specific reasons for disallowing the benefit of Section 382-B, it implies that the benefit was intended to be granted. Consequently, the court allowed the application and extended the benefit of Section 382-B to the applicant and his co-convicts.
- Does the use of the word 'shall' in Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate that the court consider the period of detention served by an accused?
- If a judgment is silent regarding the grant of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does it imply that the benefit was intended to be granted?
- Is a court required to provide reasons if it intends to disallow the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ORDER This Cr. Misc, App, No, 18/1 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant/convict Muhammad Ashraf Shah s/o Islam Shah through Superintendent District Jail, Jhelum seeking grant of benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Dr. Muhammad Anwar Gondal, Additional Prosecutor General has appeared for the State. Heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the judgment.
3. We have perused the relevant parts of our judgment dated 25.10.2011 wherein sentence of death penalty was converted to life imprisonment and it has been observed that there was. No mention in respect of grant of benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, to the applicant/convict alongwith other co- convicts. It has also been observed that no reason in respect of disallowing the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, were given in the judgment.
4. The Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, contemplates that period of detention has to be considered while awarding the sentence of imprisonment, meaning thereby Court is supposed to consider the period, if any, during which such accused was detained in custody for such offence inasmuch as word 'shall' has been used in the relevant law. The said provision of law is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:-- "Period of detention to be considered while awarding sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence it shall take into consideration the period, if any, during which, such accused was detained in custody for such offence."
5. That the implicit scheme of the law is obvious that in case of disallowing the benefit under said provision of law Court must write the reasons thereof.
6. In the case in hand when no reasons were given in respect of disallowing the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, it implies that the said benefit was intended to be granted by the Court.
7. In view of the above we are inclined to accept the prayer made in Cr. Misc. Application No. 18/1 of 2013 and to clarify that the present applicant/convict and so also the other co-convicts namely Munir Ahmad son of Fazal Dad, Muhammad Azam son of Muhammad Roshen and Mian Ghulam Mirstafa son of Muhammad Inayat are given benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Cr.
8. Misc. App. No. 18/1 of 2013 is allowed.