Lahore:
Considerable confusion continues to persist among the various state institutions as to whether the subjugated period of subession in cases involving several consecutive penalties must be credited separately for each sentence or treated as a single adjustment period.
The question surfaced in front of the Multan bench of the High Court of Lahore in the event of condemned Saghir Hussain, who claimed to have finished his sentence of 100 years in prison after obtaining more than 59 years of ordinary and special remissions.
However, bureaucratic delays and what he called “erroneous legal advice” remains major obstacles preventing his release.
Saghir was initially sentenced to death to three counts under article 302/34 of the Pakistan Criminal Code (PPC), as well as perpetuity imprisonment under article 460 PPC.
His calls were rejected by the High Court of Lahore, after which he approached the Supreme Court, not to contest his conviction, but to request a reduction in sentence.
The Supreme Court has converted its sanctions into perpetuity to three charges under article 302/34 PPC.
He subsequently made a various request before the Supreme Court asking that his life sentences be condemned to execute simultaneously. However, the court rejected the plea and said that the three perpetuity convictions would exercise consecutively.
Consequently, his cumulative sentence was calculated as 75 years under article 302/34 ppc and 25 years under article 460 ppc, in accordance with article 57 of the PPC, which is equivalent to a perpetuity prison at 25 for the purpose of calculating the sentence.
Although the introduction of the remission system through the rules of Pakistan prisons, 1978, benefited the petitioner by allowing him to gain more than 59 years of remission, he is still about 4.5 years to serve.
