WAQAR AHMAD Versus STATE

The petitioners Allah Ditta son of Allah Bakhsh and Shakeel Ahmad son of Abdul Ghafoor were convicted by Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Magistrate 1st Class on 25‑11‑1975 under section 411, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. each. Both the petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence by filing separate appeals, which were heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 3‑1‑1977. The petitioners have come up in separate revision petitions challenging their conviction and sentence in the High Court. The petitioner Allah Ditta has moved Criminal Revision 25 of 1977 whereas Shakeel Ahmad has moved Criminal Revision 28 of 1977. I propose to dispose of both the revision petitions together lay my consolidated judgment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that 1‑1/2 months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. Exh. P.A./1, the complainant, Allah Ditta was sleeping in his courtyard where he had tethered his buffalo of the value of Rs.1,500. In the morning he found his buffalo missing and thereafter he started searching for the buffalo. Ultimately on 4‑10‑1972 he lodged the F.I.R. with the Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura. The petitioner Muhammad Shakeel was arrested and he while in police custody led to the recovery of stolen buffalo from Muhammad Bashir, P.W. The said buffalo was sold by the petitioner to Bashir Ahmad vide receipt Exh. P.C. for a consideration of Rs.500 on 25‑9‑1972. It may be noted that the petitioner, Shakeel Ahmad, showed himself as Muhammad Bashir while executing the receipt. The other petitioner Allah Ditta identified the petitioner Shakeel Ahmad as Muhammad Bashir at the time of sale of the buffalo and the execution of the above‑referred receipt. The petitioner Allah Ditta also placed his thumb‑impression on the said receipt. Both the petitioners were challaned, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Abdul Latif P.W.1, Jumma P.W.2, and Din Muhammad P.W.3. These witnesses identified the buffalo and disclosed that the animal belonged to Allah Ditta, complainant P.W. Ghulam Muhammad P.W. 5 is a recovery witness. Asmat Ullah P.W.6 recorded the F.I.R. and partly investigated the case. Muhammad Bashir P.W.7 purchased the buffalo at the price of Rs.500. A sum of Rs.375 was paid and the balance price was to be paid later. The petitioners did not deny the placing of their thumb‑impression on the receipt. Their plea is that they were compelled to place their thumb‑impression on the receipt by the police. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution witnesses and rejected the defence version.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset did not challenge the conviction of the petitioners and instead submitted that the occurrence in the case took place in the year 1972 and that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the year 1975. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have already undergone two months in jail and that the sentence already suffered by them is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The learned State counsel has made a candid statement that he has no objection if tile sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Both the learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court recorded the order of conviction on 25‑11‑1975 and the petitioners were bailed out by the learned Appellate Court on 3‑12‑1975. Thus, they remained behind the bars for 9 days. The. appeals of the petitioners were dismissed on 3‑1‑1977 and they were released on bail on 23‑2‑1977. 1n this way the petitioners remained in jail for one month and 20 days. Thus, the total period for which they remained behind the bars comes to 59 days. This is a very old case and I do not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners to jail after the expiry of such a long time. Under the B circumstances the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. With this modification m the sentence, there is no substance in both the criminal revision petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.

SA./A‑486/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.