QADIR and another vs THE STATE

' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises on the following circumstances:--

1. Qadir and Bashir appellants were found guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. For murdering Yaseen and under section 307/34 for murderous assault on Irshad PW 7. They were sentenced for the former offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 1,000 each, in default of payment of fine to further four months' rigorous imprisonment. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. They were ordered to pay compensation of Rs, 5,000 each, in default of payment to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment each. If compensation was realized it was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. For the latter offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. They were sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs, 500 each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months each. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. They were ordered to pay compensation of Rs,500 each, in default to suffer further three months' rigorous imprisonment each. If compensation was realized it was to be paid to Irshad PW. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. Further, it was ordered that "the period during which the accused have already been in judicial lock up in this case, shall be counted towards their sentence of imprisonment". This is vide order of the learned Sessions Judge, Okara, dated 24-4-1983.

2. While dismissing the appeal of the convicts, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court though observed that 'I feel that section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is applicable to life cases', yet in view of Full Bench case of the High Court reported Zulfiqar Ali v. The State PLD 1964 Lah. 461 wherein it was laid down that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Cannot be granted to a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for life as the latter imprisonment is distinct from other sentences of imprisonment, the learned Judge revoked the benefit of section 328-B, Cr.P.C. Granted to the appellants by the learned trial Court. This is vide order dated 1-7-1985.

3. Leave was granted by this Court "to consider the question of applicability of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To cases of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life", vide order dated 14-6-1987.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to contest the conviction on merit but this he cannot do as leave was granted to consider the question of applicability of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Only. In this behalf he contended that the provision does not make any distinction whether the sentence of imprisonment is for life or shorter period. Secondly, this Court has been granting benefit of section 283-B, Cr.P.C. In cases where persons have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

5. Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Provides as follows:-- "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".

' It may be noted that the mendatory provision has been introduced because of the realization that an accused person is entitled to be put to trial or released on bail. If he is not to be released on bail, he must be put to trial. If for any reason the State is unable to put him up for trial it is only fair that during the period he is detained to await his trial that period is taken into consideration in computing the sentence of imprisonment given to him. Another point to be noted is that the provision occurs in a criminal statute which requires strict construction as far as it imposes restrictions and punishments. Beneficial provisions need to be construed liberally. These are axiomatic principles.

' Keeping the aforesaid in view, since the provision makes no distinction whether the sentence to be passed is for imprisonment for life or for shorter period, the benefit granted to an accused that the period during which he was detained in custody shall be taken into consideration need not be whittled down. The learned Judge in the High Court withdrew the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

Granted to the appellants by the learned trial Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the High Court in the case of Zulfiqar All v. The State PLD 1984 Lah. 461 wherein it was laid down that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was not available to an accused person who was sentenced to imprisonment for life. It may, however, be noted that in the precedent case this question was not directly involved. The accused in that case was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. Secondly, the distinction drawn between a sentence of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a shorter period is rather specious. Imprisonment is imprisonment---whether for life or for a shorter period.

This Court has consistently been grant benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To a convict sentenced for imprisonment for life in its ordinary criminal jurisdiction.

' In view of the above, the order of the learned Judge of the High Court withdrawing the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Granted to the appellants by the learned trial Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court restored with the result that the appellants shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In computing the period of imprisonment to be suffered by them.