Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑19 of 1979, decided on 5th February, 1978.

‑‑--Ss. 55 & 57 (as stood before amendment by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)] read with West Pakistan Prisons (Remissions of Sentence) Rules, 1965, r. 22 (2)‑Sentence, commuta tion of‑Contention that sentences of transportation for life, having been passed on convicts before amendment of Ss. 55 & 57, P. P. C. commutation of such sentences could only be made accord ing to un-amended provisions of those sections‑Contention, held, correct and convicts to be governed in matter of sentences on basis of law prevailing on day on which sentences and convictions recorded against them.‑‑l Sentence J.

Abdul Rehman v. The State 1978 S C M R 292 rel.

Amir Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.

Usman Ghani Rashid, A.‑G. for the State.

Petitioner's father and his. maternal uncle namely, Ghulam Kadir son of Khayali Sabzari, and Mir Muhammad s/o Khan Muhammad Sabzari were tried by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, under section 302/34, P. P. C. in Sessions Case No. 236 of 1968 ‑ and were convicted and sentenced to transportation for life; each, by the judgment dated 20th March, 1969. The appeal of the convicts was dismissed by this Court on 21st February, 1972, and the petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 13th July, 1972. The grievance of the petitioner is that the sentences of transportation for life passed on the convicts have wrongly been treated as life imprisonment, with the result that they are to undergo the jail sentences for a longer period. The petitioners therefore, pray that declaration be granted to the effect that the jail sentences imposed upon them are to be treated as transportation for life to be governed by rule 22 (2) of the West Pakistan Prisons Remissions of Sentence Rules, 1965. In other words, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the commutation of the sentence of transporta tion for life is to b." made according to the provisions of sections 55 and 57, Pakistan Penal Code, before these sections were amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unassailable and has the support of the decision‑of the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman v. The State (1978 S CM R 292) in which it has been categorically held that no law could authorise punishment of a person for an offence by a penalty greater than the penalty prescribed by law for the offence at the time the offence was committed.

Learned Advocate‑General appearing for the State also concedes to this position, and very rightly so, and we, therefore, hold that the two convicts are to be governed in the matter of the sentences awarded to them on basis of the law that prevailed on the day on which the sentences and the convictions were recorded against them by the Sessions Judge. Jacobabad. We order accordingly and allow this petition with no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.