1989 PLP 4804 (MLD)

Petitioner in person. Muhammad Akhtar AA.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 4th July, 1989. The petitioner, Ghulam Hussain alias Sanu son of Muhammad, was convicted by Mr. Munir Mubarak Khan, Magistrate Isl‑Class. Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 3-7‑1978 under section 411 P.P.C. and was sentenced to one year's R.I. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on 19-11‑1978.

2. Briefly the facts are that on the night between 1 and 2‑3‑1971, theft in the house of the complainant Ali Muhammad took place. The complainant's ornaments and clothes were stolen away by some unknown thief. A report Ex. PE was lodged by the complainant on 6‑3‑1971 with Police Station Sadar, Sargodha. The investigating officer was not able to trace out the accused and as such the case was consigned to record, Later on in the year 1973, one Ramzan alias Ramzoo, was apprehended under section 54 Cr.P.C. by the police of Police Station Phularwan and during, the investigation it came to light that the petitioner actually committed the theft in the house of the complainant Ali Muhammad. The petitioner led to the recovery of the stolen articles Ex. P 27 to P 33 including the gold ornaments. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Azam PW 1, Muhammad Nawaz PW 2, Mst. Sahibzadi PW 3, Allah Bakhsh PW 4, Dalu PW 5, Ali Muhammad complainant PW 6, Mehr Din PW

7. Altaf Hussain SI PW 8 and Amin Ali Shah PW 9.

3. The petitioner in person is present. He does not challenge his conviction and instead requests that he has already suffered in Jail for a period of about five months and eight days, both as under‑trial prisoner and as convict. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, learned Additional Advocate General is present. He states that this is a fit case in which the petitioner may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He has also brought to my notice that occurrence in the case took place as back as March, 1971 about 18 years ago.

4. From the prosecution evidence, I am of the view that the petitioner was correctly convicted under section 411 PPC. However, keeping in view the considerable period for which the petitioner remained in Jail as under‑trial prisoner and as a convict, I am of the view that it will be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner also suffered immensely during his protracted trial. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I proceed to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is accordingly disposed of. SA./G‑277/L Sentence reduced to already undergone.