Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 160 of 1985, decided on 7th April, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 379 & 511‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑‑Evidence of prosecution witnesses showing that prosecution successfully proved its case against accused persons‑‑Defence counsel also not challenging conviction of accused‑‑Conviction maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑Ss. 379 & 511‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑ Sentence‑‑No theft in fact taking place‑‑There being only an allegation of attempt to commit theft‑‑Accused remaining in judicial lock‑up for a few days during trial and again remaining in prison for a few days after their conviction by trial Court‑‑Accused once again remaining in jail for 22 days after dismissal of their appeal‑‑Sentence of accused reduced to one already undergone by them in circumstances.

Major Waheed‑ud‑Din Virk for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 7th April, 1985.

This is a revision by Muhammad Din and his two sons Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ismail against the judgment, dated 17‑3‑1985 by learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura by which their appeal against their conviction and sentence under section 379/511, P.P.C. by Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Parecha, Resident Magistrate, Sangla Hill, vide judgment, dated 10‑2‑1985, was dismissed.

2. I have gone through the record of this case. In this case, no theft in fact took place. The only allegation against the three petitioners is that they attempted to commit theft. The prosecution case is supported by Idrees Ahmad P.W.1, Hassan Muhammad P.W.3 and Muhammad Sadiq P.W.4. The case was investigated by Muhammad Siddiq, S.I. P.W.2. I have gone through their evidence and find that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also does not challenge their conviction which is accordingly maintained.

3. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no theft was committed by the petitioners and there is only an allegation of attempt to commit theft; that the petitioners remained in judicial lock‑up during the trial for a few days; that they remained in prison for a few days after their conviction by the trial Court till they were allowed bail by the lower appellate Court; and that they are in prison serving imprisonment since 17‑3‑1985 when their appeal was dismissed. It is argued that in the circumstances of the case the sentence already undergone by the petitioners be considered enough.

4 I have considered these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. For the reasons urged by him in arguments, I reduce the sentence of the three petitioners to one already undergone by them.

5. With the above modification this revision is dismissed.

H. A. K. Revision dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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