P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

Mohd. Hayat Junejo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th September 1959. The appellant has been convicted‑under section 471 read with section 466, P. P. C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison ment for five years: He has filed this appeal.

2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are that Sardar Abdul Kadir, S.

1. P. B Section, Sukkur, on checking up the revolver licence of Abdul Rehman, a goldsmith at Sukkur, developed a suspicion that the licence was a forged one. He therefore registered a first information report at the thana on 28th July 1951, and proceeded with the investigation. The investigation was ultimately entrusted to the C. I. D. Police. The appellant was arrested on 9th August, 1951 and released on bail. He was challaned in Court on 22nd November, 1955. The investigation disclosed that a number of licences had been issued from Sialkot, Multan and Lyallpur and had been disposed of in the market on which the arms belonging to the evacuees had been purchased. The charge framed against the appellant was that of conspiracy to cheat by passing on them forged arms licences for monetary consideration, the offences; being punishable under section. 120‑B read with sections 471 and 466, P. P. C., Further charge under section 471 read with section 466, P. P. C. was also framed against the appellant. After the trial was concluded, the appellant was convicted for an offence under section 471 read with section 466, P. P.' C.

3. The appellant, when called upon to answer accusations made against him, pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that the case against him was false and that it had been concocted against him on account of his enmity with one Jiwan Khan, S. I. P. who was a disciple of the Pir of Pagaro. According to him he had given evidence against the late Pilr of Pagaro and was implicated at the instance of Jiwan Khan on that account. He has examined no evidence in defence.

4. The case of the prosecution is mainly founded upon the evidence of Muhammad Shabir (P. W. 3) and Said Muhammad Khan (P. W. 4): Muhammad Shabir was a clerk in the office of the District Magistrate, Multan and his evidence is to the effect that no licence was ever issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Multan in the name of Said Muhammad. The register in which the entries about the licences issued were maintained was also before the Court and it was noticed that no entry of any such licence issued in that month was maintained in the register. The evidence of Muhammad Shabir also is to the effect that the licence in dispute dues not bear the signature either of the District Magistrate or of the Additional District Magistrate with whose signatures he was quite conversant. The evidence of Muhammad Shabir has gone absolutely unchallenged arid there is no reason why his evidence should not be believed. No suggestion of whatever sort or kind is made to discredit his evidence. The evidence of Said Muhammad Khan (P. W. 4) is to the effect that he came across the appellant who volunteered to get him‑ a licence for a rifle and also agreed to sell his rifle. 15‑20 days after he had that conversation with Said Muhammad Khan, the appellant came to him and gave hire the licence in dispute and also the rifle belonging to him. The signature of Said Muhammad was taken on an application which was taken to the office of the District Magistrate for the purpose of having the rifle belonging to the appellant, entered in the name of Said Muhammad Khan. The evidence of this witness has also gone absolutely unchallenged and there is no reason why he should not be believed. No suggestion has been made either to discredit his evidence or to show that Said Muhammad Khan had any motive for false implication of the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses appears to be quite convincing and reliable and I see no reason to discard their evidence. The conviction of the appellant therefore under section 471 read with section 466 P. P. C., is quite proper and legal. It can well be presumed that the appellant having given the forged licence to Said Muhammad had the knowledge that the licence was a forged one. Knowing that the licence was a forged one the appellant had obviously used it. The offence clearly falls under the sections enumerated above. I therefore see no substance in the appeal of the appellant and dismiss it accordingly.

5. The only question that was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is the question of sentence. The appellant was arrested on 9th August 1951, and was challaned on 22nd November 1955, although he was on bail. The appellant has been facing trial from 22nd November 1955 to 5th May 1959, when he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The protracted misery that the appellant has faced from 9th August 1951 to 5th May 1959, in having the Sword of Democles hanging on his head that he was to face prosecution is by itself sufficient punishment for the appellant. Even the trial has taken almost 31 years and such along delay in conclud ing the trial against him will also be a circumstance which will be considered for the purpose of considering the question of sentence passed on the appellant. The appellant has remained in jail from 5th May 1959, till today and has thereby remained in jail for more than four months. In view of the circumstances of this case I think the sentence undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice. I therefore dismiss the appeal and reduce the sentence passed on the appellant from rigorous imprisonment of five years to the sentence already undergone. 'The appellant is in jail and should be released forthwith, unless he is required in some other case. S. B. Sentence reduced.