Find a Lawyer

----Ss. 279 & 338--Sentence, reduction in--Petitioner an old T.B. patient and in distress--Revision petition heard after about seventeen years of occurrence--Sentence of six months' R.I. reduced to fine of Rs.2,500 on each count, in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner.

The petitioner Muhammad Akram was convicted by a learned Magistrate section 30, Wazirabad, on 19-8-1971, under section 279/338, P.P.C. and was sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default 1-1/2 months' R.I. under section 279, P.P.C. Under section 338, P.P.C. he was sentenced to six months' R.I and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default 1-1/2 months' R.I. He challenged his convictions and sentences before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala through a criminal appeal. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 10-5-1976.

2. It appears that the petitioner was not present in Court when the judgment in appeal was pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The result of the appeal was, however, communicated to the District Magistrate requiring him to cause the arrest of the petitioner so that he was made to serve his sentence.

The present criminal revision was filed on 14-7-1985. Seemingly it was time-barred, but an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was filed containing a prayer that this belated revision be entertained, because the petitioner was informed by the Reader of the Court that his appeal was allowed. He came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when the warrants of arrests were issued. It was also prayed in the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was an old T.B. patient. He could not attend the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on the date when the judgment. was announced. He produced medical certificate issued by Dr. Abdul Hayee of Rashid Hospital, Gujar Khan endorsing the petitioner's plea and certifying that the petitioner remained under treatment of Dr. Abdul Hayee as T.B. patient. The criminal revision as also the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. were entertained and lower Courts records were also requisitioned vide order, dated 15-7-1985. The said records have since been received and perused.

3. At the trial against the petitioner, Barkat Ali P.W. 1, Muhammad Bashir P.W.2 and Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.3 were examined as eye witnesses. All the three witnesses supported the prosecution version that at the fateful time the petitioner was driving a truck rashly and negligently which hit against three persons namely Muhammad Din, Munawar Hussain and one Mst. Fazlan causing injuries to them. Munawar Hussain, a child about five years old suffered a grievous injury. His left leg has to be amputated. Muhammad Din the injured person appeared as P.W.7, but did not support the prosecution case. He simply stated that at the fateful time something struck against him as a result of which his left leg was injured and he became unconscious. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the P.S.I. but without any gain. Munawar Hussain was not examined as he was of tender age and unable to answer the questions put to him by the learned trial Magistrate. The third injured P.W. was not produced by the prosecution.

Abdul Wahid a Motor Mechanic examined the truck which was being driven by the petitioner, viz. truck No. RIB 4484. He opined that brakes, horns and tie-rod of the truck were perfectly in order. The other formal witness is P.W.10 Lady Doctor Surriya Ahmad, who medically examined the injured persons on 1-9-1970.

4. The petitioner, of course, pleaded not guilty but he admitted that he was driving Truck No. RIB 4484 at the time of occurrence and that this truck was taken into possession from him by the police. No evidence has been led by him in his defence.

5. After a careful consideration of the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution at the trial against the petitioner, I have come to the conclusion that charges under sections 279 ai&338, P.P.C. have been fully brought home against the petitioner. It has, however, been noticed that the petitioner is an old T.B. patient and is in distress at the moment. It is not considered expedient and in the interest of justice that now after about seventeen years of the occurrence he should be sent to jail.

6. In the above circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner under sections 279 and 338, P.P.C. is maintained but his sentence under both the heads is altered only to a fine of Rs.2,500 on each count, in default whereof he shall suffer one year's S.I. on each count. Fine, if realized, a sum of Rs.4,000 out of the sum i.e. Rs.2,000 on each count, shall be paid as compensation to Munawar Hussain, the injured P.W. Except the alteration in the sentence, as indicated above, the revision petition is dismissed.

S.G.D./M-194/L 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.