PHC dismisses pleas seeking relief for military court convicts

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday dismissed writ petitions seeking the benefit of Section 382-B for convicts sentenced by military courts.

Releasing the 8-page written judgment, the two-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal, while hearing 25 writ petitions, including that of Gul Muhammad Khan, the court remarked that these petitioners were sentenced under a special law (Army Act) and were already granted the benefit of Section 382-B.

In the petitions, it was argued that the petitioners’ relatives were tried under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

One petition claimed that the petitioner’s relative, Riaz Ali, was arrested on April 30, 2013, and was sentenced by a military court to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. However, despite completing the sentence, he had been held in jail for the past 11 years, which violated his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It was further pleaded that he should have been released upon completion of his sentence, and the continued detention violated Articles 9, 13, 14, and 25 of the Constitution. According to his lawyer, no criminal case was pending against Riaz Ali, making his continued detention unlawful and unconstitutional.

Other petitions raised the question of whether these convicts were denied the benefit of Section 382-B and whether they were entitled to it.

The petitioners’ lawyers told the court that although the benefit of Section 382-B was granted, the convicts were still not being released after completing their sentences. They cited two previous writ petitions where relief was granted in similar cases.

On the other hand, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, in his written reply, argued that convicts were sentenced under a special law, which took precedence over general laws. He confirmed that the benefit of Section 382-B had been given and that they were dealt with under the Army Act.

In these cases, court-assigned legal assistant Shumail Ahmad Butt argued that under Articles 199(3) and (5) of the Constitution, the high court did not have jurisdiction in such matters, and the cases previously cited were not correctly assisted before the court.

After hearing all arguments, the court observed in its written decision that the accused were tried and sentenced under the Army Act, which was a special law.

The court accepted the petitioners’ counsel’s argument that Section 382-B was applied since the offence was a civil one.

However, under this Act, the sentence was considered to begin from the date the military court signs the official judicial order.

Referring to several other judgments, the two-member bench concluded that the benefit of Section 382-B had indeed been granted by the military courts, and therefore, the petitions were dismissed.