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. 655 of 1982, decided on 10th November, 1982.
---S. 506-Sentence, reduction in-Accused elderly persons of sufficiently advanced ages of 70/72 years and matter proceeding no further than verbal criminal intimidation-Sentence of 25 days' S. I. already undergone by accused, held, sufficient to meet ends of justice, in circumstances.
Raja Muhammad Safdar and Raja Mahmood Akhtar for Petitioners.
J. V. Gardner for the State.
Date of hearing : 10th November, 1982.
This revision petition has been directed against a judgment dated 17th October, 1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby the appeal of the petitioners has been dismissed and conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate vide his order dated 16th June, 1982 has been upheld with a modification as to the nature of sentence of one-year under section 506, P. P. C, converting it into simple imprisonment from that of rigorous imprisonment.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners were challaned under section 506, P. P. C. for having threatened the complainant namely Malik Gulbaz Khan, Advocate, when the latter was making his appearance on behalf of one of the parties in the Court of the Naib-Tehsildar in mutation proceedings entitled Sher Ali v. Mansab Ali on 22nd December, 1980. It is alleged that near about 2 p. m. when the complainant Advo cate and both the petitioners came out of the Court-room within the verandah, the petitioners remarked that the complainant Advocate being also resident of Murdawal then how did he dare to appear against them to which he replied that as a counsel it was a part of his duty, on which the petitioners became unruly and abused him. He was also threatened as to the consequences. Noor Muhammad petitioner attempted to take a hold of him. Dost Muhammad petitioner instigated Noor Muhammad so as to tear out his stomach. Dost Muhammad then attempted to take out a knife from his loin cloth but Fateh khan, Raja Munir Anwar Advocate and Malik Muhammad Razzaq, Advocate (P. Ws.) who were present there, intervened and separated them. The petitioners thereafter left the place threatening the complainant that if the latter appeared against them; they would kill him.
3. The prosecution substantiated its case by producing five witnesses out of whom two were local Advocates apart from the complainant himself.
4. The petitioners denied the charge and stated in their examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. that they had been involved in the case due to enmity. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. However, Mr. Wasim Kausar A. S. P. who appeared as a Court-witness deposed that during his investigation it was found that the petitioners had no weapon, hence he challaned the petitioners under section 506-I, P. P. C. He also stated that there existed old differences over an election of the District Council between the complainant and the petitioners.
5. This petition was admitted only on the quantum of sentence. The learned counsel .for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Dost Muhammad is seventy years old arid Noor Muhammad is seventy-two years. They have upto this time undergone towards their sentence 25 days According to him the petitioners have already been humiliated and this period is sufficient to teach them a lesson for offering sucks threats and incentives accompanied by emotional out-bursts. He has further submitted that such behaviour and out-bursts are given way to at the spur of the moment without meaning the true import:
6. The learned counsel for the State has very candidly conceded that in such like cases where the persons convicted are of advanced age and the matter does not happen to proceed further than the verbal criminal intimidation, then imprisonment for 25 days is sufficient to meet the ends of justice since by that one learns much as to one's irresponsible behaviour.
I agree with the learned counsel for the State. The sentence of both the petitioners is, therefore, reduced to the, period already undergone by them. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with some other case. With this modification; this petition is disposed of.
7. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment bf usual charges.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer