Malik MUHAMMAD SAEED AHMED vs STATE and another
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 6(a) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973, following his confessional statement before the trial magistrate and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits but instead prayed for a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, noting the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and sole breadwinner, to which the Additional Prosecutor General expressed no serious objection. The core legal question concerned the appropriate quantum of sentence for a first-time offender who confessed. The Court held that while the conviction must be maintained, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice, while upholding the fine. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in light of mitigating circumstances such as a lack of previous criminal record.
- Can the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
- Whether the appellate or revisional court can modify a sentence based on the lack of previous criminal record of the convict?
- Section 6(a), Punjab Essential Articles Control Act 1973
Malik Muhammad Saeed Ahmed-petitioner was charge sheeted on 04.07.2009 under Section 6(a) of Punjab Essential Article Control Act, 1973 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Multan, in respect of case FIR No. 349, dated 27.07.2008, registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial but later-on on 13.02.2010 he got recorded his confessional statement, upon which he was convicted for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and in default whereof to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which vide order dated 24.02.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan was dismissed at pre-admission stage.
2. Feeling aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant revision petition.
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered a lot and faced the ordeal of investigation as well as incarceration in Jail that petitioner belongs to a respectable family having no previous record of his involvement in such like cases, who is the sole bread winner of his family, therefore, without challenging his conviction on merits, reduction in the quantum of sentence may be ordered to one already undergone by him. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has expressed no objection to the request made by the learned counsel in lukewarm manner.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Irrespective of the fact that whether this revision petition arising out of confessional is maintainable or not, suffice it to observe that as the petitioner, admittedly, is not a previous record- holder, I deem it proper that the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, I reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him, however, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- is maintained. It is apprised that the said amount of fine has been deposited with the treasurer of this Bench vide Receipt No. 1193 dated 17.02.2015. In this view of the matter, petitioner's surety is discharged from his liability.
6. With the above modification in the sentence of the petitioner, this revision stands dismissed.