Raja SHAHID and 3 others vs SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and another
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the petitioners seeking directions to the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur, to grant them governmental remissions. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The jail authorities denied the remissions, contending that the petitioners were charged with dacoity and thus fell under the exclusionary clauses of the remission notifications. The core legal question was whether convicts under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery are excluded from government remission notifications that specifically exclude dacoity under Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that the exclusion in the notifications applied strictly to dacoity punishable under Section 395 and did not extend to robbery punishable under Section 392. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the jail authority was directed to grant the admissible remissions to the petitioners.
- Whether convicts under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery are excluded from government remission notifications that exclude dacoity under Section 395?
- Does an embargo in government remission notifications excluding dacoity automatically apply to the distinct offence of robbery?
- Can jail authorities withhold remissions granted by government notifications on grounds not supported by the text of those notifications?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 391, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 390, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Briefly stated the facts are that on the statement of complainant Jamil Akhtar, Manager Allied Bank of Pakistan, Yazman, F.I.R. No,96 of 1997, dated 12-4-1997 was registered under sections 392/411 and 109, P.P.C. At Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur against Raja Shahid, Muhammad Awais, Abid Mahmood, Khushal Khan and Miraj Din. The case was tried by the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur bivision, Bahawalpur who vide judgment, dated 27- 9-2000 acquitted Abid Mehmood aforementioned but convicted. The remaining accused under sections 392/34, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. For seven years and fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default thereof to undergo R.I. For six months each. However, they were extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The accused/petitioners approached the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur/respondent No,1 for awarding them remission granted to the convicts by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time. Their request was not acceded by respondent No,l. Hence they have been constrained to file the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for issuance of a direction to respondent No,1 to grant them remission as allowed to them vide notifications issued by the Government from time to time.
3. Comments called have been filed and brought on record.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioners that they are entitled to remissions vide notifications issued from time to time, as the embargo imposed in the said notifications is not applicable to the case of the present petitioners. He submits that petitioners have been convicted only under section 392/34, P.P.C., which offence has not been excluded from the operation of the remissions granted to the convicts.
6. Conversely, the stand of respondent No,1 is that since the petitioners stand charged for the commission of dacoity, so they are not entitled to the remission granted by the Government vide different notifications.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the notifications granting remissions exclude the offences including dacoity which has been defined in section 391, P.P.C. And is punishable under section 395, P.P.C. The offence of robbery has been defined under section 390, P.P.C. And is punishable under section 392, P.P.C. The notifications issued by the Government from time to time exclude the convicts charged with the commission of offence of dacoity punishable under section 395, P.P.C.
But these notifications do not exclude the convicts of offence under section 392, P.P.C. The petitioners, in the instant writ, have been convicted under section 392/34, P.P.C. As such their case squarely falls within the purview of notifications and the said embargo is not attracted in the instant case.
8. In the light of facts narrated above, stand of respondent No,1 that petitioners are not entitled to the remission granted by the Government vide notifications issued from time to time, is not correct.
Accordingly writ petition is accepted and respondent No,1 is directed to grant/remission to the petitioners as admissible vide notifications issued from time to time.