Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1983, decided on 16th March, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 419/109‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑House, fraudulently obtained by wife of petitioner, returned about 7‑1/2 years ago to the rightful owners and about 4 years before registration of case‑‑Petitioner having suffered some rigorous imprisonment also case of mitigation made out, sentence of petitioners reduced to that already undergone by them, in circumstances.
Amjad Ahad Sheikh for Petitioner.
M.D. Chaudhri for A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th March, 1983.
Since both Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1983 arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Muhammad Rafiq submitted an application to the Magistrate on 27‑11‑1979 that Hafiz Ahmad (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1983), his wife Mst. Nasreen Bano and Wali Muhammad (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1983) have by fraud and impersonation got transferred the house of Ishrat Ali (deceased) through a registered sale‑deed, registered on 1‑9‑1975 in spite of the fact that Ishrat Ali had died on 21‑4‑1969. The Magistrate instead of proceeding with the complaint directed the registration of case which was registered on 7‑2‑1979. The police after investigation submitted challan against Hafiz Ahmad, his wife Mst. Nasreen and Wali Muhammad under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate vide orders, dated 7‑10‑1980 convicted Hafiz Ahmad petitioner and his wife Mst. Nasreen Bano (acquitted in appeal) under sections 419 and 420, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 6 months' R.I. under section 419, P.P.C. and one year's R.I. under section 420, P.P.C.
3. Wali Muhammad petitioner was convicted under sections 419/109 and 420/109, P.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo 6 months' R.I. under section 419/ 109, P.P.C. and one year's R.I. under section 420/ 109, P.P.C.
4. The petitioners and Mst. Nasreen Bano filed appeal. The complainant filed a revision for enhancement of the sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge decided the appeal and the criminal revision for enhancement by a joint order. Mst. Nasreen Bano was acquitted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of both the petitioners under section 420, P.P.C. The conviction of Hafiz Ahmad petitioner under section 419, P.P.C. was altered to that of under section 419/109, P.P.C. and the sentence was enhanced to one year's R.I. The conviction of Wali Muhammad petitioner was maintained under section 419/109, P.P.C. but his sentence was enhanced to one year's R.I. Both the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, through separate criminal re visions referred to above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the fact of transfer of house of Ishrat Ali (deceased) in the name of Mst. Nasreen Bano vide registered sale‑deed as alleged. They have, however, stated that prior to the submission of application, Mst. Zohra Begum and Mst. Fakhar Jahan daughters of Ishrat Ali deceased had filed declaratory suit against Mst. Nasreen Bano regarding the sale‑deed, which suit was not contested by Mst. Nasreen Bano. It was decreed on 30‑10‑1975 on the statement of Mst. Nasreen Bano that the decree prayed for may be granted to the plaintiffs. It is contended that obviously this statement was made as a matter of compromise and that the aggrieved persons, namely, Mst. Zohra Begum and Mst. Fakhar Jahan never moved the authorities thereafter. It is next contended that Muhammad Rafiq complainant out of his own malice moved the application and has continued prosecution the petitioners and the acquitted accused. It is submitted that during the appeal Mst. Zohra Begum and Mst. Fakhar Jahan had submitted a written compromise. Learned counsel have submitted applications on behalf of Mst. Fakhar Jahan and Mst. Zohra Begum before this Court also that they have compromised with the petitioners. The applications and the compromise‑deeds are purported to have been signed by Mst. Fakhar Jahan and Mst. Zohra Begum, and attested by a councillor and a notary public respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that in view of the fact that the parties had 4 years prior to the registration of case entered into compromise and Mst. Nasreen Bano willingly returned the house and in view of the fact that the petitioners have already undergone the stress and strain of the trial for four years and have also suffered R.I., a case of mitigation is made out.
7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have taken into account the fact that the house said to have been obtained by the wife of Hafiz Ahmad petitioner was returned about 7‑1/2 years ago and some 4 years before the registration of the F.I.R. Both the petitioners have suffered some rigorous imprisonment also. In the circumstances a case of mitigation has been made out. The conviction of the petitioners under section 419/109, P.P.C. is maintained but their sentences are reduced to that of already undergone. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Criminal revisions stand disposed of with the above modification.
S.G.D./H‑9/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer