1990 PLP 1192 (SCMR)

S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Muhammad Aslam, Khan Gul, Habib Ullah and Nur Gul petitioners were tried by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Pendigheb on charges under section 419/420/423/468/471/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code on a complaint lodged by one Sher Muhammad an old issueless person of village Maira Sharif to the effect that Muhammad Aslam petitioner No.1 got executed sale‑deed in his favour of the land measuring 421 Kanals 11 Marlas owned by the complainant and the sale‑decd was attested by the .petitioners Nos.2 and 3 who were shown to have identified Sher Muhammad complainant, before the Sub- Registrar. Nur Gul petitioner No.4 impersonated himself to be Sher Muhammad before the Sub‑Registrar. On conclusion of the trial the learned Civil Judge 1st Class found all the accused guilty of the offence, convicted all of them under the abovementioned sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to 3 years' R.I. and with fine of Rs.2,000 each. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to suffer further R.I. for one year, vide order dated 26‑3‑1985. The accused/petitioners filed appeal against their convictions and sentences and the complainant filed revision for the enhancement of the sentence of the accused, before the Sessions Judge, Attock. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 27‑6‑1985, dismissed the revision petition and concluded with regard to the appeal of the petitioners as under:‑ "The upshot of the above discussion is that prosecution has proved its stand beyond any shadow of doubt that complainant Sher Muhammad never sold the land to Muhammad Aslam accused vide alleged sale‑deed Exh.P.B. It has further proved that accused Khan Gul and Habib Ullah attested the said sale‑deed to deprive the complainant from his valuable property. It has also established that accused Nur Gul thumb marked the said deed being Sher Muhammad vendor. Thus, the prosecution has proved the charge framed against the accused. The trial Court has convicted the accused under all counts and has sentenced them to R.1. for 3 years each as well as to pay fine. The sentence passed under section 423, P.P.C. is not legal as the maximum sentence under that section is only two years. Thus, the sentence awarded under section 423, P.P.C. is reduced upto two years and the remaining sentences are maintained. It is hereby ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C." The accused/petitioners filed criminal revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, Attock before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Beneti, Rawalpindi which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal before this Court. The learned counsel mainly contended on the question of sentence that at the time of the alleged commission of the offence the maximum punishment of the offence under section 419 of the P.P.C. was three years and thus, the maximum sentence under section 419, P.P.C.. tinder the circumstances is not warranted under the law and rather deserve a lenient view in awarding the sentence. The sentence of section 419 of the P.P.C. under the amended law has been increased to seven years. The commission of the offence is established against all the accused and the sentence awarded to them, in our view, is quite adequate. Under the circumstances, we 'find no ground for interference in the impugned judgment. The result is that this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1227/S Petition dismissed.