GHULAM RASOOL vs SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and another
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur, to grant the petitioners special remissions announced by the Federal and Provincial Governments. The petitioners, convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued they were entitled to these remissions as their offences did not fall within the excluded categories, such as terrorism or anti-state activities. The respondent contended that the petitioners were ineligible due to the nature of the case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, convicted of murder and attempted murder, were entitled to special remissions despite the respondent's claim of terrorism. The Court held that since the trial record and the final judgment contained no conviction or finding related to terrorism, the petitioners were eligible for the remissions. The Court established the principle that prison authorities cannot deny statutory or notified remissions based on allegations of terrorism if such elements were not established in the judicial record of the conviction.
- Are convicts sentenced under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically excluded from special government remissions?
- Can prison authorities deny special remissions based on allegations of terrorism if the trial court judgment does not reflect such a conviction?
- Does the absence of terrorism-related charges in the FIR and trial judgment preclude the jail administration from classifying a prisoner as a terrorist for the purpose of denying remission?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of F.I.R. No,56 of 1990, dated 4-3-1990, under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Bhung, District Rahimyar Khan, a challan against Ghulam Rasool, Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Hussain, Jan Muhammad and Razi was sent up in the Court of Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. As a result of trial, accused/petitioner Ghulam Rasool has been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Ali and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,50,000. He was further directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Ali or to suffer S.I. For six months in default thereof. He was further convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Punnon and awarded a similar punishment as in case of Muhammad Ali. Similarly, Jan Muhammad was also convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Ali and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to undergo two years' R.I. He was further directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ali and to suffer S.I. For six months. Jan Muhammad was further convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For the murderous assault on Goshi and sentenced to R.I. For ten years and a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof R.I. For one year. He was further directed to pay Rs,5,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the injured P.W. Or to suffer three months S.I. In default thereof. The judgment was announced on 7-4-1996 and at present both Ghulam Rasool and Jan Muhammad are undergoing the said in New Central Jail, Bahawalpur.
2. Instant writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed for seeking a direction in the name of Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur/respondent No,1 to award special remissions granted by the Federal and Provincial Government from time to time during the imprisonment of the petitioner.
3. Alongwith petition another Writ Petition No,3574 of 2000 has also been filed by Jan Muhammad, who is co-accused of the petitioner, for the same relief.
4. As both the writ petitions have been filed for seeking same relief, so these are being disposed of by this single judgment.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of special remissions granted by the Federal Government through Notification, dated 5-1-2000, that said special remissions are not being awarded to the present petitioners by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur/respondent No,1 on the ground that they are not entitled to said remission. He argues that stand of the respondent No,1 is not fortified from any record, as the petitioners have aot been convicted of any offence which may disentitle them to the said special remission. He submits that had the petitioners been convicted of espionage, subversion, anti-State activities, gang rape, terrorism, kidnapping, abduction, dacoities, they would not have been entitled to said special remission. However, he submits that the petitioners have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. As well as 324, P.P.C. And. Ingredients of the said offences are not covered by the offences described in the notification to disentitle them. He, thus, submits that the petitioners are entitled to special remission granted by the Federal Government as well as Provincial Government through Notification, dated 5-1-2000.
7. Conversely, the stand of the learned Assistant Advocate-General is that element of terrorism stands reflected from the contents of F.I.R., so the accused/petitioners have rightly been declined the relief of special remission.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that charge has been framed under sections 302/307/148/149/109, P.P.C. And none of the provisions of terrorism was either made applicable at the time of submission of challan or even at the time of announcement of final judgment. Had the element of terrorism been applicable to the facts of this case, it must have been reflected either in the contents of F.I.R. Or in the judgment of the trial Court. The absence of said element either in the F.I.R. Or in the body of the judgment repels the contention raised by the learned Assistant Advocate-General.
9. Since the accused/petitioners have been convicted under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. And element of the offences disentitling them to special remission are absent. Hence, they are entitled to the special remission granted by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government vide notification issued from time to time. Consequently, the writ petitions are accepted and the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur/respondent No,1 is directed to grant special remission to the accused/petitioners in accordance with law.