LAHORE:
Considerable confusion continues to persist among various state institutions over whether the period of under-trial detention in cases involving multiple consecutive sentences should be credited separately for each sentence or treated as a single adjustment period.
The issue surfaced before the Lahore High Court’s Multan Bench in the case of convict Saghir Hussain, who claimed to have completed his 100-year prison sentence after securing over 59 years in ordinary and special remissions.
However, bureaucratic delays and what he termed “flawed legal advice” remain major impediments preventing his release.
Saghir was initially sentenced to death on three counts under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with life imprisonment under Section 460 PPC.
His appeals were dismissed by the Lahore High Court, after which he approached the Supreme Court, not to challenge his conviction, but to request a reduction in sentence.
The apex court converted his death penalties into life sentences on three counts under Section 302/34 PPC.
He later filed a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court requesting that his life sentences be ordered to run concurrently. However, the court rejected the plea and clarified that the three life sentences would run consecutively.
Consequently, his cumulative 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 equates life imprisonment to 25 years for the purpose of sentence calculation.
Though the introduction of the remission system through the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, benefited the petitioner by allowing him to earn more than 59 years in remissions, he still has approximately 4.5 years left to serve.
