2021 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.

Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question the judgment dated 22.10.2019, passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption and Emigration [Central-I], Karachi, in Case No.03 of 2012, re: The State v. Hassan Ali Siddiqui and another, based on Crime No.09 of 2012, registered at Police Station FIA, Crime Circle, Karachi, whereby, the trial Court convicted appellant Hassan Ali Siddiqui son of Sharafat Ali Siddiqui, for offence punishable under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four [04] years and to pay fine of Rs.11,12.773/- and in default in making the payment of fine to further undergo SI for six [06] months, for offence punishable under section 5(2), PCA-II, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two [02] years, extending him benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of PW-1 complainant Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services West Division, Karachi at Ex.5; PW-2 Tanveer Ahmed, Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, City GPO, Karachi at Ex.6; PW-3 Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Superintendent, SITE Sub-Division. Post Office, Karachi at Ex.7; PW-4 Muhammad Imran, Assistant Superintendent (Admn.), West Division, Post Office, Karachi at Ex.8; PW-5 Muhammad Ayub, Assistant Post Master at Ex.10; PW-6 Syed Muhammad Tanveer, Senior Post Master. Alla Deen Park, Post Office, Karachi at Ex.11; PW-7 Munawar Ali Malik, Sr. Post Master, PECHS Post Office, Karachi at Ex.12: PW-8 Mir Kalam Khan, (R) Post Office Employees at Ex.13; PW-9 Rahat Khan, Sub-Inspector FIA at Ex.14: PW-10 Muhammad Hameed Khan Faizi at Ex.15: PW-11 Anis-ur-Rehman, Manager Express Post Office at Ex.16; PW-12 Abdul Jabbar. I.O./Inspector FIA, CCC, Karachi at Ex.17; and on such evidence found the appellant guilty for the charged offence and sentenced the appellant as above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant after completing the reading of the evidence and arguing the case to some extent, submits that he does not press this appeal on merits in the wake of evidence brought on the record for involvement of the appellant in the subject offence and does not dispute the conviction, but only prays for altering and reducing the sentence of the appellant to the one already undergone by him, contending that the appellant is a first offender and due to his detention his family members have suffered miseries and that the appellant, learning a lesson, has improved himself by realizing his mistake; that the appellant wants to reform and rehabilitate him as a respectable citizen; that the appellant was arrested and since then he has remained in custody; and, that the sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side.

4. Learned Assistant Attorney General, conceding the prayer of the learned counsel, has raised no objection to alteration of the sentence and reduction thereof to the period already undergone by the appellant.

5. It is an admitted fact that appellant remained in jail for about one year, five months and twenty four days including remission according to the jail roll. In the case of Niazuddin v. The State reported as 2007 SCMR 206, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reduce the sentence from imprisonment of ten years to six years whereas in the case of Gul Naseeb v. The State reported in 2008 SCMR 670, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence from for life to ten years.

6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Attorney General, and have also gone through the material brought on the record. From a perusal of the record, it reveals that all the PWs during evidence remained consistent and have supported the prosecution case. The documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution has also corroborated the prosecution case; moreover, the divergent and self-destructive pleas were taken by the defence during the evidence. In my humble view, the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned trial Court by appreciating the evidence brought on the record has convicted and sentenced the appellant as discussed above. The appellant has served sentence of one [01] year five [05] months and twenty four [24] days including the remission. The appellant, who is stated to be a first offender, has also shown his remorse and penitence as convict. Under these peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the no objection raised by the learned Assistant Attorney General, I find no reason to decline the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant for altering his sentence. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed, but the sentence awarded to the appellant is altered and reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith in this case, after payment of fine as mentioned in the order dated 22.10.2019 and in default of which undergo six month more, if his custody is not required in any other case.

7. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms. ADN/H-9/Sindh Order accordingly.