ISLAMABAD The apex court on Monday ordered to take into account the pre-sentence custody period of a convict while giving relaxation in sentence by government in the period of his punishment. A six-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmad, Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad, Justice Sayyed Zahid Hussain and Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, while giving its verdict in a case regarding duration of arrest of culprit, observed that the pre-sentence period of the convicts spent in jail in connection with the offence of which they were convicted should not go unaccounted and must be taken into consideration. However, the same would not be applicable to the convicts of offences under the NAB Ordinance 1999, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the offences of karokari, etc. The court held that the practical effect of reducing the sentence to the extent of pre-sentence custody period was that the sentence took effect from the date of the arrest of the convict in connection with the offence. This is not prohibited by any specific provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather this course appears to be permissible considering the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, read with sections 233 to 240, 383, 397 and 35, Cr.P.C. If remissions of the pre-sentence period were to be denied to the convicts after they were granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, it would lead to a situation where remission granted on the eve of Eid would be admissible to a prisoner who was convicted a day before Eid, but not to a prisoner convicted a day after the Eid, though the two prisoners were on an equal footing two days before the Eid, i.e. till then both of them were confined as under-trial prisoners and both of them also got the benefit of section 382-B, the court observed. The court held that refusal to allow remission of pre-sentence custody period to a convict whom the court had granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was tantamount to deprivation of his liberty within the contemplation of the aforementioned article of the Constitution. The court directed that it was mandatory for the trial court to take into consideration the pre-sentence custody period after the use of word 'shall for the word 'may in Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedures Code. The court also held that the refusal to take into consideration the pre-sentence period at the time of passing of the sentence was illegal. The convict-prisoners who are granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C shall be entitled to remissions granted by any authority in their pre-sentence detention or during their pre-sentence detention in connection with such offence. The court reaffirmed the law laid down in Abdul Maliks case that under Article 45 of the Constitution, the President enjoys unfettered powers to grant remissions in respect of offences and no clog stipulated in a piece of subordinate legislation can abridge this power of the President. APP adds: The Supreme Court on Monday expressing dismay for not taking any legal action against the concerned over the alleged mixing of pigs meat and bones in imported poultry feed and directed Chairman Federal Board of Revenue to appear before the court on June 19. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Justice Ch Ijaz Ahmed after hearing the case sent sample of poultry feed to National Institute of Health (NIH) to ascertain the reality. Deputy Attorney General Naheeda Mahboob Ellahi informed the court that an expert of NIH about poultry feed Dr Riffat Aisha was present in court. Dr Riffat informed the court that the NIH can provide the details of alleged mixed poultry feed to the court after its chemical examination analysis. The court directed custom department to provide sample of the feed and bear the expenses of travelling of Dr Riffat to Karachi where she would examine it and chemically analyse it and report to the apex court. The Chief Justice in his remarks said that we all are Muslims and living in a Muslim state but now we will have to eat pigs meat. Are you not aware of the teachings of Islam and why not action was taken against such people who committed such a heinous crime, he added. He said that it was pathetic that products of negative lists could be imported. Dr Aslam informed the court that it was informed in writing by a company of Bahu that there was no element of pigs meat in the feed and when the feed was imported, a strike was held and the containers were taken into custody. The Chief Justice told Dr.Aslam that what action had been taken against the importers of such feed.