ABDUL REHMAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The appellant, Abdul Rehman, has moved this appeal under section 476 (4) (b) read with section 410,‑Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15‑12‑1987 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I1, Okara (Camp at Depalpur) whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 228 P.P.C. to suffer three months' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo further one month's R.I.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a case titled `State v. Riaz' is pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Okara. In the said case, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, complainant, appeared in the witness‑box as P.W.

1. She made a statement that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by an unidentified person and on this the appellant Abdul Rehman asked the witness in a commanding way to name Riaz as an accused person in her statement. Accordingly, the witness changed her statement at the instance of the appellant. It may be noted that the appellant is the paternal‑uncle of the witness. The Court gave a warning to the appellant and later on he was asked to leave the Court. However, the appellant, when appeared as P.W. 2, tried to misbehave with the learned defence counsel and refused to answer the questions put to him in cross‑ examination. The objection o f the appellant was that the evidence was not being recorded as he desired. As a result of the misbehaviour of the appellant proceedings were initiated against him under section 228, P.P.C. read with section 476, Cr.P.C. The charge was framed against the appellant under section 228, P.P.C. Evidence of Malik Nazar Farid, Advocate, P:W. 1 was recorded which evidence disclosed that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi P.W. 1 was threatened by the appellant in open Court. Muhammad Aslam Naib‑Court corroborated the version of P.W.

1. The appellant made a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and he stated that he may be forgiven for his misconduct. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant is proved under section 228, P.P.C.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court was not at all competent to convict and sentence the appellant to suffer three months' R.I. under the provisions of section 228, P.P.C. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on section 480, Cr.P.C. whereby the maximum ser‑rice is of fine alone not exceeding Rs. 200 and in default of payment to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. Learned counsel stated that the learned trial Court has gone beyond his jurisdiction in convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer three months' R.I. It is next forcefully submitted that if the learned trial Court wanted to imprison the appellant, then a complaint should have been drafted and should have been ~, ritrusted to some other criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. Since this was not done and as such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad in law on the face of the record. The learned State counsel has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that this point was not raised before the learned trial Court. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the learned I counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the point was not raised by the appellant before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them, convicted and sentenced the appellant in accordance with law. There is nothing wrong with the order of conviction and sentence so awarded to the appellant. However, on the quantum of sentence, I take the lenient view and sentence the appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. With this observation, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly dismissed.

M.Y.H./A‑257/L

Appeal dismissed.