IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.332-P/2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9.5.2017 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in W.P.No.488-B/2016) 
 
Govt. of KPK through Secretary Home & 
Tribal Affairs Department Peshawar & others  
….Petitioners 
 
Versus 
Mehmood Khan 
….Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner 
: 
Mr. Umar Farooq Adam, Addl.AG-KPK 
 
 
 
For the State 
: 
N.R. 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
13.9.2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— Government of KPK (the 
petitioner) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the 
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, Bunnu dated 9.5.2017, 
whereby the Constitution Petition of the respondent was accepted 
and he was allowed the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. along with 
general and special remissions earned during the period of 
detention/imprisonment like his co-prisoners.  
2. 
  
Learned Additional Advocate General, KPK urged with 
vehemence that if any Court omits to grant the benefit, referred to 
above, subsequently, the same cannot be sought through 
independent petition because that will amount to a review of the 
original judgment which is not permissible under the criminal law 
and criminal justice system.  
3. 
 
The second limb of his submissions was that a cell 
phone without “SIM” was recovered from the possession of the 
CP.332-P/2017 
2 
respondent inside the jail premises thus, he was denied remissions 
according to law.  
4. 
 
The un-amended section 382-B Cr.PC. was couched in 
words/ language where for awarding benefit of detention period 
pending trial the Court was required to record reasons there for, 
however, after amendments, to refuse such concession the Court 
has to record reasons for such refusal.  
5. 
 
In the present case, as has been rightly pointed out, 
while partly accepting the appeal against death sentence awarded 
under section 302 PPC to the respondent, it was reduced to life 
imprisonment, however, the learned Division Bench of the High 
Court conveniently ignored the mandatory provision of section 
382-B Cr.PC, which was an omission of technical nature and not 
substantive one, which would not attract any bar to amend the 
original judgment but through the impugned judgment the 
omission made was rectified and the command of the law was 
given effect in letter and spirit.   
6. 
 
It is the obligatory duty of the Judges to apply the 
correct law to a lis, and not of the litigant to point out the law 
applicable. Even the parties to a lis are under no obligation to hire 
the services of a lawyer/ counsel for pleading their case because 
the primary duty to do the justice and to apply the correct law to 
the facts of a case, is the exclusive duty of the Judges. This 
principle has a legitimate background based on well entrenched 
“MAXIM” that ‘law is written on the sleeves of the Judges and they 
are supposed to know each and every law by heart’, thus any 
inadvertent omission on the part of the Court/Judges shall not 
CP.332-P/2017 
3 
deprive the party entitled to any relief if the law directs in clear 
language to be granted.  
7. 
 
As highlighted and explained above, now extension of 
benefit of pre-conviction detention period be deducted from the 
sentence awarded is mandatory and for refusal to grant the same, 
cogent, strong and convincing reasons are to be recorded. In the 
instant case it was a simple omission on the part of the learned 
Bench of the High Court to look at the substance of the mandatory 
provision of section 382-B Cr.PC, thus it can be rectified at any 
stage and even the Jailer in whose custody the prisoner is 
undergoing sentence, is bound to award such benefit even if the 
judgment is silent unless the Court for cogent and convincing 
reasons has expressly refused to grant such benefit.  
8. 
 
Similarly the general and special remissions earned by 
the other co-prisoners of the respondents if are denied to him, 
would amount to discriminatory treatment, prohibited by the 
command of Article 25 of the Constitution.  
9. 
 
The Jail Manual, particularly Chapter 8 regulates the 
grant and refusal of remissions to prisoners, which requires no 
debate, however, the Federal Government through amendments in 
certain offences has denied such remissions, which are expressly 
mentioned therein.  
10. 
 
In the instant case, allegedly a cell phone/ mobile 
phone without “SIM” was recovered from the possession of the 
respondents, however, whether any inquiry was held that for what 
purpose he was having it and whether it was actually recovered 
from his possession or someone else, is a question mark because 
on the mere statement of the lower staff he was netted into this 
CP.332-P/2017 
4 
fallacious charge. If the cell phone was having no “SIM” then, it 
was a useless article like a child toy and nothing more, therefore 
no rule of the jail manual permits to decline re-arrangements on 
this ground, thus the direction given by the High Court to grant 
special and general remissions to the respondents is fully justified 
in law. Both the submissions, on the basis of which this petition 
has been filed, appear flimsy and unfounded, rather against the 
mandatory provision of law. Therefore, this petition is found 
without legal merits and is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.  
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar of the 
Peshawar High Court and the Superintendent Jail where the 
respondent is confined.  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the   
13th September, 2017 
Nisar/-  
 
 
“Approved for reporting’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
