1983 PLP 36 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is directed against the order dated 2‑12‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 304/M/74 and the order dated 1‑2‑1974 passed in Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1973. The petitioner was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. for dishonestly keeping the stolen property belonging to Sh. Abdul Hamid complainant (P. W. 1) and sentenced to three months' R. I. His appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, filed a,,criminal revision before the Lahore High Court. This revision was heard by a learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain) on 1‑2‑1974 and according to the learned counsel on the conclusion of the arguments the learned Judge by an oral order accepted the revision petition. However, some three months later the petitioner was sought to be arrested and then he obtained the copy of the judgment which showed that the revision petition had been dismissed. He, therefore, filed an application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C..(Cr. Misc. 304/M/74) praying for correction of the order dated 1‑4‑1974. This application was admitted to a regular hearing by the same learned Judge on 26‑4‑1974 and the petitioner was, in the meanwhile, released on interim bail. The aforesaid application came up for hearing some six years later before another learned Judge of the Lahore High Court as, in the meantime, Mr. Justice Aslam Ria2 Hussain had been elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The learned Judge, by his order dated 2‑12‑1980, dismissed the said application observing that the impugned judgment was a well‑considered and reasoned judgment which was duly signed by the learned Judge. Moreover, be was not competent to review the said judgment under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against both the judgment dated 1‑2‑1974 dismissing the revision petition as well as the order dated 2‑12‑1980 whereby the application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. was dismissed. It is not seriously disputed that the order dated 2‑12‑1980 is perfectly correct and that the learned Judge was right in observing that he could not review the earlier judgment passed by Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain on 1‑2‑1974. As for the submission that the last‑mentioned judgment dated 1‑2‑197 was liable to be set aside we have not been convinced that it suffers from any error of law or principle. Therefore, the conviction under section 411, P. P. C. was rightly maintained. On the question of sentence it was submitted the petitioner was sentenced to three months' R. 1. in 1973 and he has served more than half of the said sentence. That although his revision petition was dismissed but the same learned Judge had entertained the application for correction of the said judgment and released him on bail. This application was dismissed after more than 6 years and that in these circumstances be should not be sent back to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence. The learned counsel of the State has also not opposed this prayer, as according to him the conviction is maintained and the application for review of the said order is dismissed; he would not insist on the petitioner being sent back to jail. We are also of the same view. The conviction of the petitioner is, therefore, maintained but we consider that the sentence already undergone by him will suffice for the ends of justice. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and accept it to the extent that the conviction will be maintained but the sentence will be reduced to that already undergone by him . Order accordingly.