1989 P Cr (PLP)

Talat Farooq Sheikh for Petitioners. Anwar‑ul‑Hassan Gillani for the State. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988. The petitioners, Mashooq Masih son of Taju and Noor Ahmad son of Nawab, were convicted by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Kasur vide his judgment, dated 31‑10‑1975 under section 411, P.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer six months' R.I. each. The petitioners challenged their conviction an sentence by filing appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur who dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 7‑1‑1976 and upheld the judgment of the learned Magistrate.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that during the investigation of t e case F.I.R. No. 62/72 under section 379, P.P.C. Police Station Raiwind, the petitioners revealed the commission of theft of six iron plates from the Railway, Depot which were recovered and taken into custody by the police. Mashooq petitioner got three iron plates P.1/1‑3 recovered which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.C. Similarly, Noor Ahmad petitioner got recovered three iron plates P.12/1‑3 which were also taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.D. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as five witnesses. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.1 made a written report to the police and on his report the case was registered. Javed Raza H.C. P.W.2 is a formal witness. Muhammad Arshad Khan P.W. 3 is the recovery witness. Muhammad Azhar S.I. P.W.4 is also a formal witness. Akhtar Hussain A.S.I. P.W.5 .S the Investigating Officer in the case. The petitioners denied the allegation levelled against them and produced Karam Dad as D.W.1 in their defence. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he will not challenge their conviction and instead he requested for reduction in their sentences to the period already undergone by them. He stated that the petitioners have so far suffered one month and 25 days in jail towards the completion of their sentences. The learned State counsel has made a candid statement that he has no objection if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The conviction of the petitioners has not been challenged by the learned counsel. Accordingly, the same is maintained. Regarding the quantum of sentence, the learned State counsel has made a concessional statement that he has no objection if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. It may be noted that the occurrence in the case took place as back as 16 years and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate on 31‑10‑1975 about 13 years ago. It is not appropriate at this stage to send the petitioners to jail to serve out their remaining sentences. The ends of justice shall be met if the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The sentences of the petitioners in this case are ordered to run concurrently alongwith the sentences awarded to them in the other connected criminal cases. The petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. With this observation, there is no substance in the criminal revision which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./M‑1047/L Sentence reduced.