ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Jail Appeal   No:  D-04 of 2003

&

Cr. Jail Misc.A. No.D-51 of 2012.

Date                          Order with signature of judge.

For  Hearing of M.A No.1601/2012.

14.11.2012.

Mr. Faiz Mohammad Larik, advocate for the appellant.

Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel

========

                        By this single order, we intend to dispose of both  the applications moved   by the appellant for grant of benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

                        Criminal Jail Appeal No.D-04/2003  and Cr.Reference No.01/2003  were disposed of by this court vide order dated 19.04.2006 for the following reasons:

                        “After hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is no justification to interfere  with the finding of guilt of the appellants  as has been held by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad in his judgment dated 7.1.2003.  However, taking lenient view, we commute  the sentence of both the appellants from death to life imprisonment.  With this modification, Cr.Jail Appeal No.4/2003 alongwith Confirmation Case No.01/2003 stands disposed of.”

                         Thereafter learned advocate for the appellants has moved application for extending  benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C to the appellants.   Notice  was issued to the State.

            Learned advocate for  the appellants has mainly argued  that provisions of section 382-B Cr.P.C  are mandatory  in nature as such the appellants are entitled to have the benefit as provided U/S 382-B Cr.P.C.  In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Ahmed Yar and others v. The State (1985 SCMR 1167).

                        Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel opposed the application on the ground that appellants have been convicted in murder case hence deserve no  benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

                        We have carefully perused the order dated 19.04.2006 passed by this Court.  Provisions of section 382-B Cr.P.C are mandatory in nature.  Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Yar and others v. The State (1985 SCMR1167) has extended  benefit U/S 382-B Cr.P.C to the appellants who  were not allowed such benefit  by the Courts below.  Since provision of section 382-B Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature. Therefore, in view of the above settled position of law, appellants are entitled to such benefit. Consequently the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C is extended to the appellants.

                        Application allowed accordingly.

JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE