MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE

By judgment, dated 3-7-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura in Hudood Case No. 13 of 1994, all the 4 accused namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Latif, Manzoor Hussain son of Said Muhammad Virk, Asghar Ali son of Allah Ditta and Said Muhammad son of Fateh Muhammad, were convicted under section 412, P.P.C. and each of them sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default in the payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. All the accused were extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Asghar Ali and Said Muhammad filed Criminal Appeal No.239/L of 1994 and Manzoor Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No.253/L of 1994. By the consolidated judgment, dated 31-1-1995, this Court converted the conviction of the said appellants from 412, P.P.C. to conviction under section 411, P.P.C. and their sentence was altered to the sentence already undergone by them and a further direction was given by the said judgment, dated 31-1-1995 that the said 3 appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

2. The 4th accused, namely, Muhammad Aslam, did not file an appeal earlier against, the impugned judgment of the trial Court but then the present appeal was filed by Muhammad Aslam against the said judgment which was admitted to regular hearing by order, dated 7-3-1995. It was noted in the order, dated 7-3-1995 that the appeal was time-barred by 163 days and the appeal was admitted subject to the point about the limitation. I heard Mr. Muhammad Taqi Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Klialiq Khan, learned counsel, who has appeared for the State.

3. An application has been filed for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. According to the application, the appellant been transferred to Kot Lakhpat Jail and there was no one to pursue the case of the appellant except his old mother and she was unable to pursue the case due to poverty and old age. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mst. Sardaran Bibi, mother of the appellant. Apart from the reasons given for condonation of delay, I am of the view that, even otherwise, it is a case where delay should be condoned for the reason that the 4 accused had been convicted by one judgment of the trial Court passed in one case and the appeals filed by the 3 co-accused have been disposed of and they have been given relief in the form of reduction of sentence after converting the conviction from section 412 to section 411, P.P.C. and the case of the prosecution against all the 4 accused including the present appellant is A identical as conceded by the learned counsel for the State and, therefore, it is considered appropriate that the relief which has been given to the 3 appellants should also be given to the present appellant. In the circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the State, the delay in the filing of the present appeal is condoned.

4. As observed, the case against all the 4 accused is identical and this is conceded by Mr. Abdul Khaliq, learned counsel for the State. In circumstances, I am of the view that the present appellant is also entitled to the same relief as has been extended to the other co-accused. '

5. As a result, the conviction of the appellant is converted from section 412 to section 411, P.P.C. and his sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. As the appellant has undergone the sentence awarded C to him, it is directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Appeal No.35/L of 1995 stands disposed of in the above terms.

N.H.Q./956/FSC Order accordingly.