1992 P Cr (PLP)

The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 13‑8‑1991, whereby Mian Faiz‑ul‑Hassan, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, had upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the learned trial Court, Mr. Mahmood Akhtar, M.I.C., Mianwali and maintained the sentence of 18 months' R.I. The petitioner had been extended the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case was that on 5‑10‑1989 at about 11‑45 p.m., Noor Muhammad, A.S.I., P.W.2, while on patrol duty had apprehended the petitioner and on his personal search had taken into possession .32 bore pistol (P.1) alongwith four live cartridges (P‑2/1‑4) vide Exh. P.B complaint, Exh P.A. was drafted and site plan, Exh. P.C. was prepared. The prosecution,, case was supported by P.W.3, Muhammad Aslam and P.W.4, Habib Ullah. The accused/petitioner had denied the charge, and in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. maintained that he had been involved due to enmity with the police who wanted him to work as their barber free of costs. Three defence witnesses had been produced by the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Aslam (D.W.1), Sooba Khan (D.W.2) and Fateh Muhammad (D.W.3). However, the learned trial Court placing reliance on the evidence produced in support of the charge, had convicted the petitioner under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year and six months' R.I., as stated above. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 13-8‑1991, as stated above. Hence, the present revision petition against the same.

3. The learned counsel at the very outset submitted that he shall only press for the reduction of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. In this respect, he pointed out that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is 18 months' R.I., whereas he has already undergone substantive sentence of almost 9 months. Further submitted that as the petitioner had been extended the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. therefore, it can be said that he has already suffered the‑ main part of his sentence. Further submitted that the petitioner was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and deserves to be dealt with leniently.

4. The record of the case was perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, The petitioner had been taken into custody on his conviction and sentence by the learned trial Court as stated above on L3‑8‑1991. It is further confirmed that the petitioner had been extended the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the petitioner has already undergone 8 months and 27 days of his imprisonment and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having been entitled to the remission allowed in accordance with law on Eid‑ul‑Fitr and otherwise under the relevant Jail Rules the petitioner's contention that the petitioner has already undergone major portion of his sentence is relevant and duly tenable.

5. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone him.

6. In accordance with the terms stated above, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed: N.H.Q./M‑584/1????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduce??