1985 P Cr (PLP)

Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid was heard in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanaullah Khan submitted his arguments on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits. He however, urged for reduction of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused. The learned counsel pointed out that the accused had already remained in jail for more than a year. His further argument was that there had been inordinate delay in conclusion of the case as the F.I.R. was filed as far back as 27‑4‑1979 and the case had taken nearly six years to complete. According to him the agony that accused has suffered during all these years was itself an adequate punishment for him. He further submitted that this appeal was admitted on 16‑3‑1980 when the accused was ordered to be released on bail. In his opinion it would not be justified to send the accused back to jail after lapse of five years. The learned counsel also stated that the accused is of young age and therefore deserves leniency in the sentence. In support of his arguments on the question of reduction in sentence the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a number of precedent cases. The first case referred to by the learned counsel is of Additional Advocate‑General v. Muhammad Bashir Khan P L D 1958 (W.P.) Kar. 312 wherein sentence of two years' imprisonment awarded to the accused' under sections 304‑A, P.P.C. and 101/126, Railway Act was reduced to three months on the ground of inordinate delay (nearly six years) in conclusion of the trial. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel is of Muhammad Hanif v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 118 in which the accused was sentenced to one year's R.I. for offence under section 411, P.P.C. In appeal the sentence was reduced to nine months. However, in revision, the High Court took into consideration the young age of the accused as well as the fact that he was not a previous convict and on these grounds released the accused c probation. The next case referred by the learned counsel is of Rajb Ali alias Rajjoo v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J

668. In this case revision petition against conviction of the accused was pending decision for about five years. The sentence of four months' imprisonment was reduced to 29 days' imprisonment already undergone on the ground of pendency of the revision application for five years. The next case in the above series of the cases is of 'Ahmed Din alias Ahmed v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J

934. In this case as the petitions were heard after lapse of eleven years and on this ground the sentence of one year imprisonment was reduced to the one already undergone. The other case on the question of sentence is of Muhammad Aslam and 5 others v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 809 in which the trial took six years to complete and therefore the sentence of two years' imprisonment awarded to the accused under section 325/149 was reduced to the one already undergone. The next case in the above context is of Shabbir v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J

166. In this case revision petition was heard after lapse of ten years while the petitioner was on bail. As it was not found fit to send back the accused to jail the sentence of six months' imprisonment awarded to accused under section 325/34, P.P.C. was reduced to the period the petitioner had already undergone. In the case of Arif Shah v. The state 1977 S C M R 33 relied upon by the learned counsel the Supreme Court did not think it necessary to send back the accused to jail after having remained on bail for five years during pendency of appeal and, therefore, reduced the sentence of ten years' imprisonment awarded to him under section 326, P.P.C. to the one (about two years) he had already undergone. In the case of Ashiq v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J 480, the accused was aged 22 years and was not a previous convict. He was found guilty for committing sodomy and was awarded three years' R.I. Although appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, the sentence of imprisonment was however reduced by the High Court in revision to the period he had already undergone on the ground of accused's age, as the Court took the view that he being first offender and of an impressionable age, there is every risk of his going astray by remaining for a long period in jail in company of hardened criminals. In view of the above authorities I am convinced that this is a fit case in which the sentence needs to be curtailed. Apart from the fact that the case was initiated six years ago and has taken so long to complete, the accused has enjoyed the concession of bail for over five years during pendency of this appeal. As such the learned State counsel shares the view that it will not be proper to send back the accused to jail to serve out the remaining sentence after having remained on bail for over five years. Moreover the accused has already undergone imprisonment for more than a year. If be does not pay fine he will undergo further imprisonment for six months. In the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the period of imprisonment the accused has already undergone will meet ends of justice. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused is accordingly reduced to the one he has already undergone. The revision is accepted to the extent mentioned above. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.