1991 P Cr (PLP)

Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Asif Khalil for the State. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1991. Ghulam Muhammad petitioner was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge that he was keeping unlicensed .12 bore gun with him on 9-2-1983. To prove its case, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Ejaz Ahmad A.S.I., P.W.3 stated that on 9-2-1983, he was on patrol duty. He found Ghulam Muhammad petitioner carrying unlicensed .12 bore gun, so he apprehended him in the presence of Atta Muhammad, Head Constable and Ahmad Hayat Head Constable. Ata Muhammad P.W.1 has fully supported Ejaz Ahmad, A.S.I. The remaining evidence was of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He desired to produce evidence but subsequently declined to produce defence evidence and pleaded guilty. On the basis of the prosecution evidence coupled with the confessional statement voluntarily made by the petitioner on 10-8-1983, the trial Court convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.600, in default thereof six months' R.1. The petitioner did not file appeal. The State, however, filed revision for the enhancement of the sentence, before the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, who vide his judgment dated 6-2-1984 accepted and enhanced the sentence of fine of Rs.600 to one year's R.I., hence this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of fine only awarded by the trial Court was a legal sentence and as such there was no justification to enhance the same to one year R.I. Learned counsel for the State has opposed him.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the sentence of fine of Rs.600 on the charge of keeping an unlicensed gun was really inadequate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in exercise of his revisional powers, was quite competent to enhance the same or to alter the sentence of fine into sentence of imprisonment. The order of enhancement of sentence was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. No second revision lies in the High Court against this order. No doubt, in exceptional cases, the High Court may interfere in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, in exercise of its revisional powers under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., but so far as the instant case is concerned, I do not see any exceptional reason to interfere, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A of this Court with the legal order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Pursuant to the above discussion, this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. fails and is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court will issue warrant for the arrest of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner and will send him to jail to serve the remaining sentence. S.A./G-426/L Application dismissed.