1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Sentence‑‑Theft involved some house‑hold effects‑‑Accused having served more than six months in jail out of sentence of one year R.I.‑‑State having no objection to reduction of sentence‑‑Sentence reduced to period already undergone by accused. Ata Ullah Mirza for Petitioners. S.M. Zubair, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. The petitioners, Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulli son of Shamir, Ghulam Muhammad alias Gomi son of Kalu, Sultan Ali alias Jagga son of Mahni and Muhammad Aslam alias Sheri son of Kabir, were convicted by Rao Tehseen Ahmad Tehseen, Resident Magistrate, Kamalia under section 411, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. each vide his judgment dated 30‑7‑1987. The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence by filing appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 9‑1‑1988.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that some household effects comprising of garments, Chaddars, bed covers, pillow covers, silver bangles, a battery 12 volts, tape‑recorder, cassetes and an iron box owned by Khadim Hussain, complainant, were stolen from his quarter within the area of brick‑kiln of Bashir Ahmad in the village of Jamal Pahar, Police Station Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh on the night between 22/23‑9‑1984. Early in the morning, the complainant came to know about the theft and accordingly, he reported the matter to the police. A case under section 452/380, P.P.C. was registered. The petitioners were arrested and were interrogated. Accordingly, from the possession of the petitioners, the case property was recovered. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Raja Sikandar Hayat P.W.1, Khadim Hussain P.W.2, Muhammad Yaqub P.W.3 and Muhammad Shafi P.W.4. The petitioners while making statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against them. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated earlier.

3. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not wish to challenge their conviction and instead he has requested that in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He submitted that the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 9‑1‑1988 and that, they were never released on all and they remained behind the bars throughout. It is next argued that the petitioners have almost served out their sentences. Mr. S.M. Zubair, learned Additional Advocate‑General has made a clear statement that he has no objection if the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. He after checking the record submitted that the petitioners were never released on bail and they have almost served out their sentences in the case. Accordingly, in view of the categorical statements of the learned counsel for the parties, the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and on the statement of the learned Law Officer, the sentences of the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentences of the petitioners in this case are ordered to run concurrently alongwith the sentences awarded to them in the other connected criminal cases. They shall be released forthwith provided of course, they are not needed in any other criminal case. With this modification, the criminal revision is dismissed. S.A./Z‑76/L Sentence reduced,