1984 P Cr (PLP)

On office reference, S motu notice was issued to respondent abovenamed, why sentence upto rising of Court and fine of Rs. 300 imposed on him, on his conviction under- section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, vide judgment dated 24th June, 1982, in Case No. 151 of 1982 be not enhanced, as the said sentences were considered by this Court as inadequate. In response to the above-mentioned notice, respondent appeared before this Court on 21st August, 1983 and at his request above matter was adjourned to 28th August 1983. Respondent abovenamed appeared on 28th August, 1983 and submitted, that he was induced and coerced to plead guilty, although earlier, he had pleaded not guilty before the learned trial Court, as he is innocent and was falsely implicated by police in the case in question. He further prayed for mercy. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that respondent plea of guilt is in writing and the learned trial Court specifically put him question about inducement etc. to which respondent replied in negative. As far as inadequacy of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel in support of above reference submitted, that maximum sentence provided for the offence in question is 7 years or fine or both and as such, the sentence awarded to respondent is per se inadequate. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned Advocate for State and have gone through the R 8 P of the learned trial Court and impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. I find that respondent in writing pleaded guilty and I see no force in the contention of the respondent, that he was induced and/or coerced for said plea, which is also clear from the statement of respondent under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he again stated that his plea of guilt was voluntarily. He further stated that he had no knowledge that carrying of dagger was offence. As far as sentence awarded to respondent is concerned I find that proviso about minimum punishment of 3 years in section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, is only applicable to fire arms and bomb etc. as per West Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Act, 1973 and not to possession of dagger, knife and such articles. In addition to this, I find, that exact size of the dagger recovered from respondent is not on record. Record only shows it was over 4". Keeping in view these facts and law, I see no reason to enhance the sentences awarded to respondent in the case inn question after the lapse of over one year, as I find that in view of the facts and circumstances of present case, sentences awarded to respondent no doubt lenient, but cannot be considered to be inadequate, as section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 envisages punishment of fine only, in fit cases. In view of may above conclusions I dismiss the above Suo motu Revision and withdraw the notice issued to respondent and discharge the bail bonds, if any, executed by the respondent in connection with above matter. M.A.K. Revision dismissed.