1991 PLP 1769 (MLD)

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Ss.323/149 & -148

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439

Accused after having not questioned their conviction before Appellate Court and also after having obtained benefit of reduction in sentence at their own request, had filed revision in High Court

Order of Appellate Court which was passed on the request of accused did not suffer from any illegality

Relief in exercise of revisional powers being discretionary in nature was not exercised in favour of accused in peculiar circumstances of the case as it did not lie in their mouth now to question their conviction or sentence of fine

Judgment of Sessions Court was neither perverse nor illegal

Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Nemo for Petitioners. Khalid Mahmood Farooqi for the State. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. Muhammad Anwar and four others, petitioners, were tried under section 308/148/149, P.P.C: on the charge of inflicting Lathi and Wahola blows to Ghulam Hussain and Bahadar P.Ws. On the conclusion of the trial, they were convicted under section 323/148/149, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. on each count and a fine of Rs.200 each, or in default thereof one month's R.I. each. The petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence. At the time of hearing the appeal on 28-8-1983, the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners did not question the conviction. He requested only for reduction in sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, with the consent of the parties, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, altered the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default thereof six months' R.I. each with the direction that the fine will be paid to the injured P.Ws. in equal share, hence this revision.

2. No one has appeared for the petitioners. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.

3. It is really sad that after having not questioned the conviction before the learned Appellate Court and also after having obtained the benefit of reduction in sentence at their own request, the petitioners have filed this revision. I do not see any illegality in the order of the learned Appellate Court, which was passed on the request of the petitioners. The relief in exercise of the revisional powers under section 439, Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not want to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court in favour of the petitioners. 1t does not lie in their mouth to question the conviction or the sentence of fine. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is neither perverse nor illegal.

4. For what has been said above, the revision is dismissed. The trial Court will issue notices to the petitioners directing them to pay the fine within a reasonable time. On their failure to deposit the fine, the trial Court will issue warrants for their arrest and will send them to jail to serve the sentence in lieu of the fine. When the fine is realised, the same will be paid to the injured witnesses in equal share, as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order, dated 28-8-1983. N.H.Q./M-2919/L Revision accepted.