Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 2020 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rabia Sultan vs Province of Punjab t

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 2020 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rabia Sultan VS Province of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary Home Rr. 225 & 242 [as amended vide Notification No. SO (R&P) 4-24/10(P-I) dated 1st April 2018, Government of the Punjab]---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 4---Under-trial prisoner---Criminal history, absence of---Better class facility in the jail, entitlement to---Scope---Husband of the petitioner was confined in jail after his arrest in case/ FIR having been registered under multiple sections of P.P.C, including dacoity, read with S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Petitioner filed constitutional petition for better class facility in the jail for her husband as the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) had dismissed her application with the same grievance---Contention of the petitioner being that her husband belonged to a noble family and maintained a high social status being a politician and also remained Governor of the Punjab, therefore, he was entitled for better class facility in the jail---Respondent /Government contested the claim while distinguishing the case of petitioner's husband from other facilitated prisoners on the ground that he was involved in offences under S.395, P.P.C, and under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and as per amendments of year 2018 in Prisons Rules, 1978, such category of offenders were excluded from the benefit of R.242 of the Prisons Rules, 1978---Validity---By virtue of Notification No. SO (R&P) 4-24/10(P-I) dated 1st April 2018, Government of the Punjab introduced amendment in Prisons Rules for a modified version of R.225 and 242 to club both the categories of convicted and under-trial prisoners in one form of sailing and R.248 was omitted.---Under R.225, after amendment, convicted and under-trial prisoners shall be classified as:- (a) better class; (b) ordinary class; or (c) political class---Better class facility to the petitioner's husband was restricted by the authority by applying R.242(2)(c)(v) of the Prisons Rules, 1978, which though included S.395, P.P.C, but not S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In said clause (c) of R.242(2), the words "has not been" are used; whereas clause (a) of same subsection mentions the word 'is' and 'has not been' and Clause (b) uses the words 'is' or 'has been' ;both the words, 'is' or 'has been' maintain different connotations and meanings; the use of word "is" obviously represents the present tense and would refer to something that is to be done or is being done in the present, therefore, by not using the word 'is', rather simply inserting the word "has been" in clause (c) makes it clear that it talks about something done in the past, thus the instant clause would apply on an offender who remained involved previously in such offences and this clause is not specified for first offender---Term "has been" in unequivocal terms denotes past event---In the present case, no information was placed on record that petitioner's husband maintained criminal history of like cases---Therefore, order passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) was result of wrong appreciation of legal provision, misapplication of law as well as of discrimination---Similarly placed prisoners were already extended said facility, therefore, it was the constitutional right of the petitioner's husband to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law which is an inalienable right of every citizen wherever he may be, as ordained under Art. 4 of the Constitution, therefore, he could not be deprived of such right---No doubt petitioner's husband by his social status, education or habit of life had been accustomed to a superior mode of living; therefore, he was entitled to better class facility under the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---High Court set-aside impugned order with the direction to immediately grant better class facility to the petitioner's husband---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 2020 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rabia Sultan vs Province of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary Home Rr — 2024 PCrLJ 2020 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ