LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE

1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with the leave of this Court is filed against the judgment of Federal Shariat Court dated 11-11-1991 whereby a Division Bench of the said Court while maintaining the conviction and sentences of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and under Article 22- of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, hereinafter to be referred to as `the Ordinance' only, acquitted the co-accused Muhammad Mohsan in the case of all the charges. Leave was granted in the case as follows:-

2. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant did not contest: the appeal on merits but only confined his arguments on the question that the trial Court as well as learned Federal Shariat Court while maintaining conviction and sentences of the appellant did not allow the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the appellant.

3. We have gone through the evidence in the case and are of the view that the evidence in the case established the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such no exception could be taken to the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial. Court and which were upheld in appeal by the learned Federal Shariat Court. We have, however, found that neither the trial Court nor the learned Federal Shariat Court adverted to the question of grant of concession of section 3132-B, Cr.P.C to the appellant. Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

4. "382-B. Where a Court decides to pass a 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. It is quite clear from the language of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. that while passing sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence, the trial Court is bound to take into consideration the period if any during which the accused 13 was detained in custody for such offence. In the case of Oadir and another v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 1065), it was held that even in cases where the accused is sentenced for imprisonment for life the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. are also applicable. In that case, the trial Court while convicting the appellant for life imprisonment had granted benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. which was withdrawn by the High Court in appeal. However, this Court set aside the order of High Court and restored the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended to the appellant in that case by the trial Court, In the case of Amjad and another v. The State (1992 SCMR 21172), the trial Court had omitted to extend the benefit of section 382-B, CrY.C. without noticing any feature in the case justifying such denial to the accused. This Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant extended the benefit of section 382-B, CrY.C. to the appellant in the case. In the present case, e find that neither the trial Court nor the Federal Shariat Court pointed out any circumstance which would justify the denial of extension of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the appellant. While maintaining the conviction and sentences of the appellant awarded by .the trial Court and confirmed by the Federal Shariat Court, we direct that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. will be extended to the appellant. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. accordingly.

6. N.H.Q./L-89/S Order accordingly.