Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No.1231 of 1970, decided on 31st March, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 148, 324/149 & 325/149‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Revision petition coming up for hearing after 15 years while accused suffered agony of protracted trial as well as of delay in disposal of their revision petition‑ Sentence reduced to that already undergone by accused, in circumstances.

M.S. Baqir for Petitioners.

Muhammad Fazil for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 31st March, 1985.

This is a revision petition by Dulls and others, petitioners Nos.1 to 5, against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Jhang dated 19‑10‑1970, dismissing their appeal, but reducing their sentences under sections 324/149 and 325/149, P.P.C. to six months' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rupees Fifty (Rs.50) each or in default thereof to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment each and under section 148, P.P.C. to four months' rigorous imprisonment each; the sentences being ordered to run concurrently. Earlier, the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Chiniot, by his judgment dated 19‑3‑1969, had sentenced them under sections 325/149 and 324/149, P.P.C. to two years' rigorous imprisonment each on each count and under section 148 P.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment each and to a fine of Rupees One Hundred (Rs.100) each under section 325/149, P.P.C. or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each; all the sentences being ordered to run concurrently.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sentences should be reduced to that already undergone, as the present case has come up for hearing after a great length of time. In view of the statement of the learner counsel for the petitioners, this petition is being disposed of on the limited point raised. This petition, which was admitted in 1970, has now come up for hearing after almost fifteen years. The petitioners have not only suffered' the agony of a protracted trial, but have remained in suspense as regards the outcome of the present petition, which itself is also sufficient punishment. Taking all circumstances into consideration, the ends of justice would be served if the sentences are reduced to that already undergone.

3. For the foregoing reasons, whilst maintaining the conviction of Dulls and others, petitioners Nos.1 to 5, under sections 325/149, 324/149 and 148, P.P.C., I would reduce their sentences to that already undergone. The petitioners are on bail. Subject to the fines being paid, as awarded under section 325/149, P.P.C., their bail bonds shall stand discharged. In case the fines are not paid, the petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment in lieu of non‑payment of the same. This petition, therefore, stands partly accepted, in terms of reduction in sentences as stated above.

S. G. D.

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.