Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 323 of 1970, decided on 2nd July 1970.

S. 440‑Revision Criminal trial‑Reduction of sentence‑Does not operate to accused's prejudice‑High Court can reduce sentence in proper cases without giving either party an opportunity of being heard.

Amir and others v. The Crown I L R 1946 1ah. 295 rel.

Major Wahiduddin for Petitioner.

The petitioner in 'this case was convicted by Mr. M. R. Khalid P. C. S., Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Pind Dadan Khan, of an offence under section 325, P. P. C., and sentenced to suffer three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. one thousand, in default to suffer further R. L, for six months. An appeal was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, which was entrusted to Kh. Muhammad Ashraf, P. C. S., Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, and 'the same was dismissed in toto: The petitioner applied to this Court for revision of the orders passed by the Courts below. The matter came up before Mr. Justice M. M. Faruqui, who admitted the petition on the question of sentence, only, but did not suspend the sentence of the petitioners with the direction that if the case was not disposed of within six months, the question of bail will be reconsidered. Another, petition, Cr. Misc. No. 2/70 has been filed in this Court, praying for the suspension of the sentence. In the course of the hearing of this petition learned counsel urged that this Court could, if so desired, reduce the sentence without issuing any notice to the State as the State has no right to be heard in criminal revisions. He cited Amir and others v. The Crown (I L R 1946 Lah. 295), in which a Full Bench of this Court observed:‑

"On the other hand, it is expressly provided by section 440, that in the case of revision petition, this Court in interfere in proper cases without giving either party an opportunity of being heard. The only exception is that no order can be passed to the prejudice of the accused, without giving him such an opportunity. Clearly, reducing a sentence is not an order to the prejudice of the accused and therefore, in a proper case such an order can be passed without notice to the Crown."

Following the above decision I proceed to decide this case.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is this. On 14th September 1967, at about sunset time Fateh Muhammad accused while' chasing Sardar Khan P. W. trespassed into the house of Muhammad Nawaz, brother of Sardar Khan. Muhammad Nawaz reprimanded the accused of his conduct, whereupon the accused picked up a brick and hurled at Ghulam Hussain which hit him at his mouth, as a result of which one of his teeth fell out and two upper teeth were broken and there was a bleeding from the sockets.

The prosecution version has been supported at the trial by Muhammad Nawaz P. W. 1, Ghulam Hussain P. W., 2., Sardar Khan P. W. 3, Yaseen P. W. 4, and Nazir Ahmad P. W. 5. The ocular account is also affirmed by the medical evidence.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge doubted the presence of Yaseen and Nazir Ahmad P. Ws. at the place of occurrence, but he found that the evidence of Muhammad Nawaz, Ghulam Hussain and Sardar Khan corroborated by the medical evidence was enough to bring home the charge against the accused.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but only prayed for the reduction of the sentence.

5. Considering all the circumstances, of the case, in my opinion, the sentence of nine months R. I. is enough to meet the ends of justice and I order ‑accordingly. The sentence of fine is remitted.

Petition accepted. Sentence reduced.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.