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. 220 of 1969, heard on /8th March, 1985.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S. 304-A/337/338/429--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439- Revision petition being heard after 16 years--Accused reaching age of 61 years in the meanwhile--No involvement of accused in any criminal matter ever since his release on bail--Accused already having undergone 2 month's R.I.--Sending person of 61 years of age to serve unserved sentence especially when he remained on bail for, such long period, held, would be unjust and too harsh--sentence reduced to that of already undergone in circumstances.--[Sentence].
Nemo for Petitioner.
Mian Muhammad Akhtar for A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1985.
This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 4th of March, 1969, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, Camp Gujranwala in an appeal arising out of an order dated 30th of March, 1968, passed by a learned Magistrate of Gujranwala.
2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was sent up for trial before the learned Magistrate for offences falling under sections 304-A, 337, 388 and 429 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences charged with and Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences charged with and awarded the following sentences:--
One year R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 under section 304-A, P.P.C.
Six months R.I. each under sections 337, 338 and 429, P.P.C.
All the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner went up in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, Camp Gujranwala, who by his judgment, dated the 4th of March, 1969 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court.
4. From the above it appears that the sentences of imprisonment being concurrent it would in effect be a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine was not suspended and, therefore, it must have been recovered.
5. Out of the sentence of imprisonment the petitioner has already undergone about two months. He was 45 years of age at the time of A his conviction and by now he must be above 60 years, 16 years having elapsed since the pendency of this revision.
6. Apart altogether from the merits of the case it appears unjust to send the petitioner to Jail to undergo the unserved sentence especially when he has been on bail for all these long 16 years and there is nothing on record to show his involvement in any criminal matter eversince. Sending a person of 61 years to Jail at this stage will be too harsh.
7. In view of the foregoing position, dismissing this revision petition, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that which he has already undergone.
S.A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer