ISLAMABAD, Jan 26: The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger bench a case of remission of sentence of hundreds of prisoners languishing in different jails and a reduction in their sentence was withdrawn because of its judgment in a separate case.

A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousuf and Justice Farrukh Mehmood took up petitions moved by 566 prisoners whose remissions had been withdrawn and ordered formation of a larger bench for a decision on all the cases.

In one of the petitions, the appellant stated that they were confined to Kot Lakhpat Central Jail in Lahore and were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment.

“Despite the fact that remissions have been granted to different prisoners under Article 45 of the Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Pakistan Prison Rules 1978, their reduction in the jail term have been forfeited on the grounds that the remissions granted to the petitioners for the period prior to their convictions (when they were under-trial prisoners) were inapplicable in their cases and that remissions granted by the provincial governments, Inspector-General of Prisons and Superintendent of Jail were in violation of the PPC and CrPC.”

Senior Advocate Mohammad Akram Sheikh submitted before the court that the forfeiture of remission could not operate retrospectively on account of the 2005 Supreme Court judgment in the Haji Abdul Ali case.

He said remission earned by thousands of prisoners whose release had been overdue had been illegally forfeited. In Pakistan, the counsel stated, the law of remission was changed by parliament when it decided to incorporate Section 382-B CrPC in the statute book and it became mandatory that the under-trial period should be taken into consideration for award of sentence.

The counsel argued that if the substantive sentence of a convict could be reduced by giving him benefit of Section 382-B CrPC, how a peripheral advantage of remission could be denied.

If two persons are charged for the same offence on the same day, but the trial of one concludes in six months and of the other in six years, they would end up serving different sentences for the same offence which was discriminatory, absurd and impermissible, the counsel argued.

Mr Sheikh also referred to a chart whereby comparative probable date of release of convicts was calculated with entitlement to remission and with forfeiture of remission.

There are conflicting judgments of different benches on the same issue, he said, adding there was a dire need for bringing uniformity in the law relating to remissions and it mandates constitution of a larger bench to decide the issue.