MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ALIAS BAB00 Versus THE STATE Muhammad -Hayat Junejo , S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G.

ORDER

1. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant was a teenager at the time when he was convicted by the Trial Court, but unfortunately he was not given any benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Even in the High Court the learned Judge who decided his appeal did not consider this aspect of the case. He has further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and he has not been given any benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has contended that in view of the fact that the provision is mandatory and the applicant /appellant was teenager when he was convicted. He has no objection if the benefit of provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is given to the applicant.

3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel an have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment passed by this Court. It is an admitted position that the applicant was about 16 years of age at the time the alleged incident took place. Unfortunately the learned trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the case at the time of awarding sentence to the applicant. Even in the High Court learned Judge who decided the appeal did not take note of the provisions of section 382-B , Cr. P . C .

4. In view of the fact that the provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, are mandatory and the applicant was not given any benefit on this aspect by the trial Court as well as by this Court, and his appear before the Supreme Court having been dismissed, I direct that the applicant is entitled to benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. in respect of the period he has remained in jail as undertrial prisoner and after his conviction.

5. The application stands disposed of.

6. S. A. /M-379/ K Order accordingly.