Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1979, decided on 7th November, 1983.

-- S. 409-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 410--Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 10-Finding of trial Court in respect of prosecution allegations based on cogent reasons and case against accused established beyond reasonable doubt-Con viction maintained.

-- S. 409-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 410--Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 10-Sentence-Accused fac ing inquiry and trial since long and remaining in custody both as undertrial prisoner as well as after conviction--Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one already undergone. [Sentence].

Azhar Ali Siddiqi for Appellant.

Sohail Muzaffar for the State.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1983.

The learned Advocate for the appellant at the outset submitted, that he was pressing the above appeal only in respect of quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. In this connection the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that appellant has been facing this trial right from 1976, although he was arrested earlier in 1970. In addition to this the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that the appellant remained in custody as under-trial prisoner from 30th December, 1970 upto 5th January, 1971 and in custody after conviction from 21st January, 1979 till 24th February, 1979 and as such this period may be considered to be sufficient in the ends of justice. As far as fine is concerned the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that he is a poor man out of job and as such the same may also be reduced reasonably.

The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that he was fully supporting the impugned judgment as prosecution by the statements of prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, he submitted, that since appellant was arrested in 1970 and was sent up for trial in 1976, since then he has been facing trial, the sentences awarded to the appellant may be reduced, as it may be deemed proper by this Court.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned advocates before me and have gone through the R and P of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment.

I find that prosecution by the statement of P. W. Dost Muhammad, P. W. Moinuddin, P. W. Mst. Akhtari Begum and P. W. Gul Rehman has established beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was entrusted with delivery of money order Nos. 8944 and 8287 from the city Post Office but failed to deliver the same to P. W. Mst. Akhtari Begum Payee of the money order Exh. 7 as well as to P. W. Gul Rehman. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., in respect of P. W. Gul Rehman stated, that he had delivered the money order to his brother, whereas in case of Akhtari Begum he stated, that he had delivered money order to her. This statement of the appellant is not at all supported by any evidence on record. On contrary P. W. Akhtari Begum and Gul Rehman had categorically denied the receipt of the money orders in question. In view of this, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court, which are based on cogent reasons in respect of the prosecution allegations and therefore, I find no merits in the above appeal.

As far as sentences awarded to the appellant are concerned, I find great force in the arguments of learned Advocate for the appellant, that since appellant has been facing inquiry and trial in respect of the cases in question right from 1970 till today and has remained in custody both as under-trial prisoner as well as after conviction, the ends of justice will be fully met, if the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant i reduced from 6 months to the one already undergone by him. As far a fine is concerned, the amount is reasonable and in accordance with the law.

Therefore, while dismissing the above appeal on merits, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by impugned judgment from 6 months to one already undergone by him while maintaining the fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on him. However, I grant one month time to the appellant to deposit the fine amount in the learned trial Court, failing such deposit the appellant shall suffer further R. I. for one year, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court is directed, that in case the appellant fails to deposit fine, to issue non-bailable warrants for his arrest and on his arrest to remand him back to judicial custody to serve out sentence in lieu of fine only. In case the fine is deposited by the appellant within the period allowed, the bail bonds executed by the appellant in the above appeal shall stand discharged.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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