1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 61‑‑Sentence‑‑Occurrence 13 years old‑‑Accused suffered agony of protracted trial‑‑Conviction not challenged‑‑Accused suffered one month and 20 days' imprisonment‑‑Sentence reduced to already undergone in circumstances. C.M. Sardar for Petitioner. A.A.‑G. and Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for the State. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988. The petitioner, Nadir Hussain has moved this criminal revision against the judgment of his conviction and sentence. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate 1st Class with Section 30 Powers, Garh Maharaja, District Jhang on 16‑2‑1978 and was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. plus a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for three months under section 61 of the Excise Act of 1914. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 15‑4‑1978. A recovery of forty bottles (P.1 to P.40) of Murree Beer, ten bottles of country made Vat‑I whisky (Exh.P.41 to P.50) and 107 Tolas of contraband Charas was effected from the possession of the petitioner on 8‑7‑1976 at 10 p.m. at Ghehalpur Bus Stand, Tehsil Shorkot in presence of witnesses vide recovery memo. Exh. P.A. Thus, the F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was registered against the petitioner. Munawar Shah P.W.2, Ghulam Hussain P.W.3 and Maqsood Ahmad P.W.4 proved the recovery of `the above said articles from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him and took the position that he has falsely been implicated in the case. In support of his defence, Sarwar D.W.1 and Ismail D.W.2 appeared.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel did not challenge the conviction o; the petitioner and instead submitted that he has already suffered so far one month and 20 days in jail and that the occurrence in hand took place as back as 8‑7‑1976. The learned counsel states that the petitioner has already suffered on account of his protracted trial and that ends of justice shall be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The learned Additional Advocate‑General does not contest the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that occurrence took place about 13 years ago. From the evidence of the prosecution, I am convinced that the petitioner was correctly convicted. Even otherwise, the conviction has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to take a lenient view in the matter and accordingly I proceed to sentence the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is however, maintained. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision which is dismissed. S.A./N‑260/L Sentence reduced