MUHAMMAD RIZWAN Versus State
This criminal revision application arises from the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for possession of an illegal pistol, resulting in rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine. The appellate court maintained the conviction. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness and quantum of sentence in light of the applicant's youth, reformative penology, and the period already spent in custody. The Sindh High Court held that while the conviction stands, the sentence should be modified considering the reformative objective of punishment and the young age of the offender. The Court laid down the principle that imprisonment serves a reformative purpose, and where an accused has served a substantial initial period and shown potential for rehabilitation, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the payment of the fine.
- Whether the sentence of a young offender can be reduced to the period already undergone in view of reformative penology?
- Can grounds regarding the condition of a recovered weapon and lack of ballistic report be raised for the first time if not agitated before the trial court?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J .-.---Applicant Muhammad Rizwan was booked in case F.I.R. No.88 of 2003 of Police Station Nabi Bux, Saddar Town, Karachi, under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance for possessing illegal arm, namely, pistol. The learned Magistrate had convicted hint to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 in default to undergo R.I. for two months more. Benefit of section 382-B was also given. An Appeal was filed by the appellant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi South, which was transferred to learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South who had upheld the order of the Magistrate vide judgment dated 29-8-2006.
2. Mr. Raza Hashmi states that both the Courts below have misread the evidence and have not appreciated the evidence as the pistol recovered from the appellant was not in serviceable condition and has not been to Ballistic Export for his opinion. Mr. Fazalur Rehman Awan, learned State counsel states that these grounds cannot be agitated at this stage as it was for the Advocate for the applicant to raise such pleas before the trial Court and should have made an application before the trial Court for sending the weapon to Ballistic Expert for opinion which has not been done at the proper stage and such arguments are of no benefit to the applicant.
3. The applicant is present along with his father. He is a young boy and states that now he is working as motorcycle mechanic in Ranchore Lines, Karachi,' and knows his job very well. His father is also present who is an old man. Sending people to jail is basically not to punish them but to reform them. In the present case, the applicant has served four months sentence in jail and has been fined of Rs.10,000. In my view, if somebody can learn lesson with the punishment of four months it is not necessary that he should continue to remain in jail for two years. The applicant is a young boy and keeping him in jail for a longer period will adversely affect his outlook in his future life. I hereby reduce the sentence of applicant from two years to the one already undergone and order him to pay fine of Rs.10,000 within three days and submit receipt before Nazir of this Court.
4. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.
5. H.B.T. /M-102/K Petition dismissed.