1980 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner was convicted under section 406, P. P. C. by the learned Magistrate, Multan and sentenced to undergo one year's R: I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,700 or in default to suffer nine months' R. I. vide his order dated 29th September, 1966. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan v. his order dated 11th April, 1947.

2. This petition is directed against the aforementioned order of con viction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The complainant Noor Muhammad also filed Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1967 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. This order shall dispose of both the matters together.

3. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 4,700 by the complainant in the months of September October, 1961 in two instalments. One of Rs. 1,200 vide receipt dated 10th September, 1961 and the other of Rs. 3,500 vide receipt dated 15th October, 1966. The background of passing this money was that Noor Muhammad was an allottee of lot No. 27 situated in Chak No. 93/M which was resumed by the Government, and the same, with crops, was delivered to the petitioner, being Lambardar of the area, on superdari. Noor Muhammad agreed to pay the abovesaid amount to the petitioner. on the condition that he would lift the crop in case the appeal filed by him against the order of resumption was not accepted. In the event it was accepted, the petitioner would repay the aforementioned amount to the complainant. The petitioner did not pay the amount despite notices served upon him one of which was replied. The complainant had to move applications to the higher authorities for his redress until he filed the complaint against the petitioner.

4. The prosecution produced the scribes of the receipts purported to be signed by the petitioner and got verification of his thumb‑impressions on the documents by the Finger Prints Expert. The prosecution thus established that the petitioner did not repay the aforementioned amount despite the acceptance of appeal of the complainant.

5. The accused petitioner although admitted his thumb impressions on the receipts but stated that the same were obtained in token of payment of land revenue which he used to collect being Lambardar of the Chak.

6. The learned trial Court, after properly evaluating the evidence on the record, believed the prosecution version and convicted the peti tioner. The First Appellate Court also applied conscious mind to the evidence on the record and concurred with the finding of the trial Court. 7; I have perused the relevant record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and found that the concurrent findings of the lower Courts are based on proper =appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from material irregularity.

8. In the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court which is discretionary in nature, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not interfered with unless the same are found to be perverse or resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9: In this view of the matter, the order of conviction is maintained, however, the question of sentence imposed upon the petitioner require reconsideration, particularly, for the reason, that at the time of conviction by the trial Court, the petitioner was an old man of sixty‑five, and he had to await the decision of this petition for a period of over 12 years. Therefore, I alter the sentence of the petitioner, to that, he had already suffered but he shall have to pay the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court, otherwise in default, to undergo the sentence already order by the trial Court.

10. In light of the alteration made in the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner, the Revision Petition No. 593 of 1967 is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.