Malik MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 22(a)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, handed down by the Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi. The core legal question revolved around the quantum of sentence and whether restitution of amounts allegedly taken from victims could be ordered in criminal proceedings. The court decided to maintain the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant, noting his advanced age and the time he had already spent as an under-trial prisoner. Regarding the refund of money, the court held that such a controversy should have been resolved during investigation or trial, and left the victims to pursue civil litigation for recovery. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may reduce sentences to the period already undergone in appropriate circumstances, and that civil remedies remain available for financial restitution when not addressed during trial.
- Can an appellate court reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant?
- Whether the court can order the refund of disputed amounts to victims in a criminal appeal when no such measure was taken during trial?
- Are victims entitled to recover alleged amounts from a convict through civil litigation if restitution is not ordered in criminal proceedings?
- Section 22(a)(b), Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---The appellant was convicted under section 22(a)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 to undergo R.I. For three years on 15-3-2004 by the learned Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi, in case Nos. 71 of 2000, 1 of 2001, 2 of 2001, 3 of 2001, 4 of 2001 and 16 of 2001. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the appellant was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C.
2. Mr. Shahid Qadeer, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, states that the convict/appellant has spent 22 months and 8 days in jail as under Trial Prisoner. Since the appellant is in advance age and he has spent 22 months and 8 days in jail. I reduce the sentence of the appellant to the one already undergone by him. He is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.
3. ' At this stage, Ms. Sofia Saeed, learned State counsel has shown A her concern about the amount received by the appellant/convict from different poor people. She seeks direction from this Court for refund of that amount. This controversy should have been resolved by the Investigating Officer at the investigation stage or the learned trial Judge could have taken measures on the basis of evidence. However, it will be open for the victims to recover the alleged amount from the convict/ appellant through civil litigation, if so advised.
4. ' All the Criminal Appeals are dismissed on above terms.