Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 308 of 1966, decided on 11th June 1976.
‑‑ Sentence ‑ Mitigation ‑ Petitioner, a teen‑ager sentenced to 2 months' R. I. for keeping contraband charas in his possession--- Petitioner already serving out as much sentence as he would have served after usual remissions‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone, in circumstances.‑Punjab Excise Act (I of 1914), S. 61.‑[Sentence].
Sh. Muhammad Islam for Sh. Muhammad Ayub for Petitioner.
M. Rafiq Butt for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th June 1976.
Mateen Javid was convicted and sentenced to two months' R. I. under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, vide judgment of Mr. Faisal Tehsin Memon, Magistrate First Class, Lahore, dated 25‑1‑1966, for keeping contraband charas P. I in his possession. His appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, was dismissed on 15‑4‑1966, as being without any merits.
2. Hence the revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 26‑4‑1966 on the question of quantum of sentence only and the petitioner was allowed bail on that very date.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Nazir Ahmad A. S. I. P. W., who was present in Soha Bazar on patrol duty, received a secret information that a person was dealing in charas at bus stop Chauk Rang Mahal, adjacent to adds Zia‑ud‑Din Badmash. A raiding party was formulated which included ‑Ghulam Muhammad and Meraj Din, out of whom Ghulam Muhammad appeared as P. W. The petitioner was searched and five tolas of charas P. 1 was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and have perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without controverting the merits of the case, has submitted that according to A I R 1941 Sind 48, the ends of justice would be adequately met ‑if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He has pointed out that out of the total sentence of two months, the petitioner had already undergone twenty days in confinement before his release on bail and this would be the maximum sentence he would have served because of several remissions, which are usual in favour of the convicts who show exemplary behaviour. He has further pointed out that the petitioner at that time was a teenager who might have been under the bad influence but has now mended his life in a way that he is living as a peaceful citizen's and working as a Petition‑Writer outside the Passport Office.
5. In the light of the above submissions, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the safe administration of criminal justice to send the petitioner once again back to jail lest to revive in himself the criminal propensities which have sine subsided. Accordingly, I, while dismissing his revision petition and upholding his conviction, reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. He is on bail, he will stand discharged of his bail bonds.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer