2009 PLP 1242 (YLR)

The learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal and requests that the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced from 14 years to the period already undergone and the fine may also be remitted, as he is unable to pay the fine. He submits that the appellant is a first offender, young man and having family responsibilities. He further submits that due to his detention in prison he and his family have mentally and financially crippled. He has further submitted that the appellant has learnt lesson and regrets as he committed the offence in a mitigating circumstances. He has shown remorse and penitence. Consequently during his serving sentence he has improved the lot and realized his mistakes by committing such offence. He undertakes not to repeat such an offence in future. He wants to rehabilitate by leading a good life as a respectable citizen. He further submits that no purpose would be served to keep him in prison to serve out the remaining sentence, on the contrary it will be burdened on government exchequer. He referred cases reported i.e. 1989 PCr.LJ 840, PLD 1977 Karachi 1049, 1993 PCr.LJ 490, 1991 PCr.LJ 886 and 1993 MLD 1823 and contends that in the said cases the sentence of the convicts in appeal was reduced in circumstances. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State raised no objection and states that the sentence be reduced to already undergone and the fine be also remitted. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and perused the record and the case-law. The jail roll submitted by the jail authorities shows that during his stay as U.T.P. and as convict prisoner, the conduct of the appellant is found satisfactory. Since Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the State has not controverted to this effect that the appellant is a first offender and shown his remorse and penitence and as per jail roll he has served out substantive sentence of ten years as per prison/jail roll, the appellant deserves leniency. In view of the above; we dismiss this appeal as not pressed and conviction is maintained. However, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from 14 years to ten years' R.I. and also reduce the fine from Rs.500,000 to Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) and in default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. for one year instead of four years. He is also entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended to him by the learned trial court. Order accordingly. H.B.T./I-4/K Sentence Reduced.