Haji MAULA BAKHSH and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the life imprisonment of the appellant, Allah Ditta, while the co-appellant, Haji Maula Bakhsh, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, causing his petition to abate. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the surviving appellant to the statutory benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the lower courts had omitted consideration of this matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant was indeed entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, as the State did not oppose the plea and the High Court had failed to address it. The Court partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the period spent by the appellant during the trial must be taken into consideration while computing his sentence. The key principle laid down is that a convict is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B for the period spent during trial, and appellate courts must ensure such statutory relief is duly extended when omitted by courts below.
- Whether a convict is entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when it was omitted by the trial and high courts?
- Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a jail petition for leave to appeal result in the abatement of that petition?
- Can the period spent by an accused facing trial be taken into consideration while computing their sentence under section 382-B?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Haji Maula Bakhsh (since deceased) and Allah Ditta had filed Jail Petition for leave No,214 of 1991 against the impugned judgment dated 18-8-1990 of the Lahore High Court whereby the sentence of death awarded to Haji Maula Bakhsh was commuted to imprisonment for life and the life sentence awarded to Allah Ditta by the trial Court was maintained and the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of his sentence was dismissed. The petition filed by the appellants for leave came up for hearing before this Court on 19-2-1994 when the Court was informed that petitioner Haji Maula Bakhsh died his natural death on 11-2-1994 and, therefore, his jail petition for leave abated. leave was, however, granted to other petitioner Allah Ditta. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellant Allah Ditta. He has pressed this appeal only for grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. We have heard learned counsel on the above question and also Mr.Javid Aziz Sindhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the State.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellant Allah Ditta that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was wrongly denied to the convict by the trial Court and the High Court has not considered this question in the impugned judgment. In this case, the appellant had raised the plea of private defence of person and property and the question on which leave was granted by this Court to him was whether if at all Allah Ditta was not entitled to the complete right of private defence of person and property was he not entitled to the benefit of extending the right of private defence and lesser punishment under section 304, P. P .O .
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not opposed the plea on behalf of appellant Allah Ditta for extending the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To him. We also find that the High Court has not considered this plea in the impugned judgment.
5. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that appellant Allah Ditta was entitled to grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And accordingly this appeal is partly allowed to the extent that such benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to him while computing the sentence undergone by him, the period spent by him while facing trial, will be taken into consideration.
' Criminal Appeal No,44 of 1994 stands disposed of accordingly.