2020 P Cr (PLP)

Appellant has challenged impugned judgment dated 20.01.2018 passed in Case No.20/2013 arising out of FIR No.15/2013, under sections 409/34, P.P.C. of PS FIA CC Sukkur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer 12 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.149,40,058/- and in case of non-payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 2 years' more, he was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that it revealed to the bank that cash of Rs.74,70,029/: were deficient and missing, a written note of appellant Munawar Ali Soomro secured from strong room of the bank in which he disclosed his admission about embezzlement and misappropriation of the above amount. After full dressed trial, trial court found him guilty as aforesaid.

3. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are major contradictions in prosecution evidence which were not considered by the trial court, that no independent witness was examined as PWs are subordinates of complainant, however he will not press this appeal on merit if sentence is reduced as already undergone. Besides at this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has served for more than 10 years and two months including remission, he is sole bread earner for his family.

4. In contra, learned DAG supported the impugned judgment to be just and proper and after considering material evidence brought on record by the prosecution in which witnesses examined deposed against the appellant and offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt, when he is not disputing on reduction of sentence.

5. Since, appellant is not pressing appeal on merits but seeking reduction of sentence, therefore, we would examine the legality of such plea. There are certain offences, the punishment whereof is with phrase "not less than" while there are other which are with phrase "may extend upto". Thus, it is quite obvious and clear that the law itself has categorized the offences in two categories regarding quantum of punishment. For one category the Courts are empowered to award any sentence while in other category the discretion has been limited by use of the phrase 'not less than'. Such difference itself is indicative that the Courts have to appreciate certain circumstances before setting quantum of punishment in first category which appear to be dealing with those offences, the guilty whereof may be given an opportunity of "reformation" by awarding less punishment which how low-so-ever, may be, will be legal. The concept of reformation should be given much weight because conviction normally does not punish the guilty only but whole of his family/dependents too. A reformed person will not only be a better brick for society but may also be helpful for future by properly raising his dependents.

6. In view of above, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant to already undergone. As per jail roll applicant has completed 10 years, two months and 24 days including remission. Accordingly, conviction is maintained but sentence is reduced to already undergone by the appellant including payment of fine. Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case. SA/M-197/Sindh Sentence reduced.