LAHORE:
The considerable confusion continues to persist among several state institutions about whether the low -trial detention period in cases involving multiple consecutive sentences must be accredited separately for each sentence or being treated as a single adjustment period.
The problem arose to the Fine Bank of the Superior Court of Lahore in the case of the convict Saghir Hussain, who claimed to have completed his prison sentence 100 years after ensuring more than 59 years in ordinary and special remissions.
However, bureaucratic delays and what he called “defective legal advice” remains important impediments that prevent their release.
Saghir was initially sentenced to death by three positions under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Criminal Code (PPC), together with life imprisonment under section 460 PPC.
His appeals were dismissed by the Superior Court of Lahore, after which he approached the Supreme Court, not to challenge his conviction, but to request a reduction in the sentence.
The Apex court turned its death penalties into life imprisonment for three positions under section 302/34 ppc.
Later he submitted a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court requesting that his life imprisonment be ordered simultaneously. However, the court rejected the statement and clarified that the three life imprisonments would be executed consecutively.
Consequently, its accumulated sentence was calculated as 75 years under section 302/34 ppc and 25 years under section 460 ppc, in line with section 57 of the PPC, which is equivalent to perpetual chain to 25 years for the calculation of sentences.
Although the introduction of the referral system through the prison rules of Pakistan, 1978, benefited the petitioner by allowing him to win more than 59 years in remissions, he still has approximately 4.5 years left to serve.
