Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 637 of 1970, decided on 22nd July

S. 439‑Revision Cmnrl below giving convincing reasons to discard defence evidence and finding prosecution evidence ‑as confidence inspiring and independent‑High Court accepted such findings of fact and declined to interfere.

S. 440‑Notice High Court can interfere without giving either party ants opportunity of being heard‑‑No order, however can be passed to prejudice of accused without giving him such opportunity‑Reducing of sentence, held, not an order to prejudice of accused and such an order can be passed without notice to State.

440. ‑‑Sentence‑ Mitigation‑Accused not a previous convict‑ Such fact can be taken into consideration in reducing sentence.

Muhammad Sharif Chuhan for Petitioner

The petitioner in this case was convicted by Ch. Imtiaz Sahi, Resident Magistrate. Chunian, of an offence under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. An appal was filed in the Court of the learned Session; Judge, Lahore which was entrusted to Mr. Zafar Ali Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who confirmed his conviction and sentence. The petitioner has applied to this Court for revision of the order passed by the Courts below questioning the legality and propriety of the sentence.

2. The facts found by the Court below are fiat on the night between 17th/ 18th July, 1968, the petitioner was apprehended at Sur Singh Bridge, at about 2‑00 a.m., by Zulfiqar Ahmad A. S. I. On his personal search, an unlicensed pistol and two cartridges were recovered from the fold of his loin cloth. The Court below found that Mahunda and Niamat Ali, the two recovery witnesses, were present at the time of the recovery and that their evidence inspire confidence and they believe the evidence of recovery and stamped it as independent. They did not believe the defence evidence and gave convincing reasons to discard it.

3. I have no hesitation in accepting the findings of the fact. as stated above. For the reasons stated above, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner. The question of sentences requires consideration. Under section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court can interfere in a revision petition without giving either party any opportunity of being heard. The only exception is that no order can be passed to the prejudice of the accused without giving hi, such an opportunity. Clearly the reducing of sentence is not an order to the prejudice of the accused and, therefore ire a proper case, such an order can be passed without notice to the State.

4 In the case in hand, the petitioner is not a previous convict, therefore, in my opinion, the sentence which he had already under gone will meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.

Petition rejected, 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.