1991 P Cr (PLP)

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21-4-1988, by which a learned Civil Judge 1st Class at Shahpur, exercising the powers of Magistrate Section 30, convicting Muhammad Yaseen appellant under section 372/373, P.P.C. sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 on each count; also convicting him; under section 482, P.P.C. sentenced him to one year's R.I.; further convicting him under section 483, P.P.C. sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000, also convicting him under section 486, P.P.C. sentenced him to one year's -R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 and further convicting him under section 420, P.P.C., sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.4,

000. He directed that in case of default of the payment of the said fine, the convict shall further undergo two years' R.I. He ordered that all the above sentences shall run consecutively.

2. By the same judgment, he convicted Ashfaq Ahmad and Muhammad Azam appellants under sections 272, 273 and 482, P.P.C. to six months' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.3,000 each. He also convicted each of them under section 483, P.P.C. and sentenced them to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 each. He further convicted them under section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced them to one year's R.I. each. In case of non-payment of fine they were directed to undergo a sentence of one year's R.I. each for each offence, total being four years' R.I. All their sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2-A. The prosecution case was that on 25-5-1986 a police party headed by Assistant Commissioner, Shahpur, raided the beverages factory of Muhammad Yaseen appellant situated at village Jhawarian and found him, with the help of his co-convicts, manufacturing aerated water having counterfeit mark of Coca Cola, 7-UP, Fanta etc. The bottles and other materials, including manufacturing equipment, were seized and a case was registered at Police Station, Jhawarian, under sections 272, 273, 420, 471, 475 and 486, P.P.C. On the completion of investigation the appellants were sent up for trial. On its conclusion they were convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid.

3. The learned trial Magistrate haphazardly dealt with this case and convicting the appellants under various provisions of the P.P.C. most of which had no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentenced them to different sentences which do not appear to be tenable but the learned counsel for the appellants, in order to cut the matter short, has stated that at the most Yaseen appellant was liable to be convicted under sections 272 and 273, P.P.C. because he was the factory owner and his co-appellants were only workers or labourers, employed by him. He requests that the conviction of Yaseen appellant may be maintained and since he has by this time already undergone eight months' R.I., he may be sentenced accordingly and two other appellants may be acquitted.

4. The learned State counsel also appears to be agreeable to the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. Thus, where the conviction of Yaseen appellant under sections 272 and 273, P.P.C. is maintained, his conviction and sentences under all other provisions of P.P.C. are set aside. As regards his sentence, the same is maintained to the extent of imprisonment on each of the two counts but his sentence of fine is remitted. However, his sentence on each count is directed to run concurrently. As he has already undergone about eight months' R.I. and he is on bail, he shall not be arrested.

6. As regards Ashfaq and Muhammad Azam appellants, since they were only helpers or ordinary workers, working in the factory of Yaseen appellant, their appeal is accepted, their conviction and sentences under various provisions of P.P.C. are set aside and they are acquitted. S.A./M-21538/L Appeal partly accepted.