1994 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Ghulam Mohyud Din for Petitioner. Naeem Akhtar for the State. Date of hearing 8thNovember, 1993. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 21-6-1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and also the order of Magistrate 1st Class, dated 17-1-1993, convicting the petitioner under section 411, P.P.C. and sentencing him to 3 years' R.I. and a. fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. for six months. It may be mentioned that while dismissing the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the petitioners' sentence to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500. He was also allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein picked the pocket of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.2) on 2-12-1992 and deprived him of a sum of Rs.52 comprising four currency notes of Rs.10 each P.2(4), two currency notes of Rs.5 each P.3(2) and one currency note of Rs.2, P.4. The petitioner was rounded up then and there by Abdul Ghafoor, H.C. and other police officials on duty at Railway Station, Faisalabad and the stolen currency notes were recovered from his possession and secured under memo. Exh.P.A. Abdul Ghafoor, H.C. (P.W.1) took the petitioner to the police station and produced him before Shabbir Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.3) who on the statement of Muhammad Ashraf, complainant (P.W.2) recorded the F.I.R. (Exh.P.B.). The A.S.I. (P.W.3) after completing the investigation challaned the petitioner to Court.

3. At the trial the prosecution case was supported by Abdul Ghafoor, H.C. (P.W.1), Muhammad Ashraf, complainant (P.W.2) and Shabbir Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.3). In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegation. He also appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and controverted the allegations on oath. Learned trial Court, accepting the prosecution case convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. He preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which too failed but his sentence was reduced. Feeling dissatisfied he has filed the instant revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would not challenge the conviction on merits and rightly so, as there is overwhelming evidence against the petitioner to support the charge. However, he submitted that since the petitioner is a raw youth and is not a previous convict, therefore, his sentence should be reduced. Learned counsel for State has not opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence serious. In these circumstances, while maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 411, P.P.C., I am inclined to reduce his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone, which comes to about eight months, being sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The fine is remitted. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case N.H.Q./L-62/L Sentence reduced.