1994 P Cr (PLP)

The present criminal revision petition calls into question the legality and propriety of the judgment, dated 1-8-1993, whereby the learned Additional Sessions. Judge, Sialkot, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment, dated 29-4-1993 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, maintained his conviction under Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, but reduced his sentence from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I. and reduced the fine imposed on him from Rs.2,000 to Rs.500 or in default thereof directed him to undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. by the said judgment.

2. The brief facts leading to the present criminal revision petition are that on 22-12-1992 the complainant Majeed Ahmad, A;S.I., alongwith his subordinates, apprehended the petitioner at 4-30 p.m. in Chowk Kakke Seian Pasrur and during his personal search one bottle of liquor was recovered from the right fold of his Shalwar. The complainant drafted complaint Exh.P.B. and sent it to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. The recovery memo. Exh.PA. was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He also drafted the rough sketch of the place of recovery Exh.P.C. He separated six ounces of liquor and sent to the Chemical Examiner and after the completion of the investigation challaned the petitioner.

3. At the trial the prosecution had produced as many as four witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 Muhammad Arif, F.C. and P.W.2 Sabir Hussain F.C. are the recovery witnesses. P.W.2 had also taken the parcel of sample to the Office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore and delivered there intact on 31-12-1992. P.W.3 Waris Ali, Moharrir H.C. had kept the parcel in the Malkhana. Majeed Hussain, A.S.I. P.W.4 apprehended the petitioner recovered one bottle of liquor from him, drafted the complaint Exh.P.B., recovery memo. Exh.P.A. and prepared rough site plan Exh.P.C. and, challaned the petitioner. The prosecution also produced in evidence the reports Exh.P.D. and Exh.P.D./1 and closed its case. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him. He, however, declined to produce any evidence or to record his statement under the provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

4. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court in accordance with the terms stated above.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that he shall not assail the conviction of the petitioner and shall contend only for the reduction of his sentence. In this respect, submitted that the petitioner, a poor labourer, has already undergone substantial imprisonment of two months before and after his conviction. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner has already been dealt with leniently.

6. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby held that it shall meet with the ends of justice, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, while reducing the fine imposed on him to Rs.100 or in default thereof to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Order accordingly.

7. In accordance with the terms stated above, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./W-45/L Sentence reduced.