P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

Azizullah Shaikh for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 594 of 1963), Murtuza Husain for the State (in both Petitions). Dates of hearing: 14th and 16th June 1965. This is a revision application filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction recorded against him by the S. D. M., Sukkur, under sections 486 anti 420, P. P. C., sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months under each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. Sukkur, which was dismissed with the modification that the convictions of the petitioner were altered from sections 486 and 420, P. P. C. to sections 486/511 and 420/511, P. P. C. The sentences passed on the petitioner were, however, maintained. It is against this judgment of the Sessions Judge that the present revision application has been filed. An application for enhancement of sentence has also been filed by Abdul Ghani. The revision application filed by the petitioner and the revision application filed by Abdul Ghani will be disposed of under this judgment.

2. The facts on which this case is based briefly are that the General Trading Company of Lahore were the manufacturers of sewing machines under tire registered trade mark `Saigon'. The documents Exhs. 6/A, 6/C and 6/D have been produced to establish that the trade mark under which the sewing machines were being manufactured was registered. Abdul Rashid was the sole agent of this Company at Sukkur for the sale of `Saigon' machines. He came to know somewhere in 1962 that the petitioner was selling the sewing machines under a fake name of `Saigon' at a cheaper price. He consequently informed Abdul Rahim the Manager of the Company at Lahore, who deputed Abdul Ghani P. W. 3 to verify the facts at Sukkur. Abdul Ghani came to Sukkur and on coming to know the facts engaged the services of Khurshid Ahmad P. W. 4 for the purpose of presenting himself as a bogus purchaser of `Saigon' machine from the petitioner. Khurshid Ahmad consequently went to the petitioner on the 15th of July 1962 and purchased a `Saigon' machine from him for a sum of Rs. 145, the value of the real `Saigon' machine being Rs.

185. Cash Memo Exh. 6/1 was given by the petitioner to Khurshid Ahmad. The machine and the cash memo were taken to Lahore from where a notice was sent to the petitioner Exh. 6/J for damages of Rs. 10,

000. Subsequently Abdul Ghani came to Sukkur and filed his complaint with the `B' Section Police Station at Sukkur on the 4th of October 1962.

3. The police during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and secured the fake `Saigon' machine No. MS00428, Article C, under mashirnama Exh. 1/A. After the usual investigation was completed, the petitioner was challaned.

4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that the sewing machine, Article C, which is the subject‑matter of this case was not the machine sold by the petitioner. According to him, the prosecution have produced a different machine with absolutely different parts in it. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to me to be without force. The two Courts below have concurrently held on this question of fact that the machine, Article C, produced by Abdul Ghani is the machine which was sold by the petitioner on the 15th of July 1962. I have also examined the evidence and I see no reason for doubting the evidence of Abdul Ghani, Abdul Rashid and Khurshid Ahmad, who have all unanimously stated that the machine produced by them is the machine sold to Khurshid Ahmad by the petitioner on the 15th of July 1962. The evidence of these witnesses is strongly supported by Exh. 6/1 which is the cash memo given by the petitioner for the sale of this machine. The cash memo mentions both the number of the machine as well as the namo `Saigon' in it. The case of the petitioner is that the word `Saigon' as well as the number on this machine have been subsequently fabricated by the General Trading Company at Lahore. The case of the petitioner appears to be without force. The cash memo itself shows that `Saigon' machine was sold by the petitioner to Khurshid Ahmad. The cash memo also shows that the machine sold to Khurshid Ahmad was bearing No. MS00428. Both these things appear on the machine itself. Even otherwise the statement of the petitioner stands falsified by the fact that the cash memo shows the price of the machine to be Rs. 145. `Saigon' sewing machine obviously could not be sold for Rs. 145 when its real price was Rs. 185 The machine sold by the petitioner was obviously of an inferior type and that the petitioner had sold this machine on the goodwill of the trade mark `Saigon'. It would obviously fetch better purchasers if the machine was sold for Rs. 145 when its real price was Rs.

185. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also is that the petitioner may have sold the second hand machine for this amount for which there was no embargo on him. The case of the petitioner is not that he had sold the second hand machine nor is it his case that he had sold a machine with a name other than `Saigon' on it. The evidence of the defence witnesses Mahhoob Illahi and Muhammad Ramzan has not substantiated the theory put forward by the petitioner in that they have said not one word about what the case of the petitioner in Court is. On this view of the evidence on record, I see no merit in the application and consequently dismiss it with this modification only that the sentence passed under section 486/511, P. P. C. would be six, months and not nine months as mentioned by the Sessions Judge The maximum sentence under section 486, P. P. C. being one year, the sentence under section 486/511, P. P. C. could not be more than the half of the sentence under section 486, P. P. C. Under these circumstances, the sentence passed under section 486/511, P. P. C. is reduced from nine months` rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for six months only.

5. So far as the revision application for enhancement of, sentence is concerned, I see no ground for accepting it. The prosecution against the petitioner started as far as back as 1962 and he has faced the trial all along. The sentence under section 486/511, P. P. C. awarded to the petitioner is maximum. The sentence under section 420/511, P. P. C. also, in my opinion, is not inadequate. The revision application for enhancement of sentence consequently stands dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. Warrants may be issued against him for his arrest to serve out the remaining sentence. S.A.H./S.Q. Petitions dismissed.