MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus THE STATE

This, Criminal revision is directed against the judgment, dated 30-1-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot District Jhang upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the trial Court vide his judgment, dated 4-10-1989 by which he convicted and sentenced the petitioner under section 447, P.P.C. to undergo 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.

2: The case F.I.R. No.538/80 dated 9-12-1980 was registered against the petitioner under section 188, P.P.C. on the complaint of A.C., Chiniot alleging that the petitioner was a lessee of the land of Abdur Rauf Khan who had submitted an application to the effect that the lease of the complainant's land was for 5 years and after the expiry of the said period the petitioner had not restored the possession of the land to him and also took away the entire crop of Kharif 1980 without giving its due share to the applicant. Muhammad Hanif had violated- the provisions of section 144, -Cr.P.C. promulgated by the complainant. The challan was put up in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate and the petitioner was charged under section 188, P.P.C. which he denied and the prosecution evidence was summoned. On the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25-10-1981, the petitioner was acquitted but on revision, the case was remanded for retrial vide order, dated 17-4-1982, of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. During trial it was stated that the petitioner was a lease-holder of the disputed land from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980 and after legally entering the said land he remained in possession illegally, after the expiry of lease-period. Thereafter the petitioner was charged under section 447, P.P.C.

3. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Muhammad Aslam, Head Constable stated that he recorded the F.I.R. Exh.PA. after the receipt of the order of A.C., Chiniot. P.W.2 Akhtar Ali Patwari had submitted the report Exh.P.B. P.W.3 complainant Abdur Rauf stated that he had given on lease his land measuring 160 Kanals 7 Marlag to the petitioner from Kharif 1975 ;to Rabi 1980 and the petitioner remained in possession after the expiry.of lease period illegally and was yet in possession and he even did not pay `Batai share'. P.W.4 Muhammad Sarwar, A.S.I., investigated the case. All the P.Ws. fully supported the proseci'tion case.

4. The accused when examined under'section 342, Cc.P.C. on 23-7-1979 admitted that he was still in possession of the disputed land and also stated that he remained in possession thereof with the order of the Civil Court and produced certified copies of documents D.A. to D.P. and closed his defence. The accused has raised the plea that he had become co-sharer is the disputed land after purchasing the share of Abdullah Khan, brother of the complainant P.W.3, and could not be tried under section 447, Cr.P.C. as he was entitled to retain the possession but the trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

5. I have given anxious thought to the case of the petitioner and I am of the view that the petitioner was rightly and legally convicted by the trial Court and dismissal of his appeal by the appellate Court was also just and legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for leniency ' in the matter of sentence and has stated that the petitioner's appeal w dismissed by the learned Appellate Court on 30-1-1991 and his sentence was suspended by this Court on 10-3-1991. The petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 12 years and has already remained behind the bars for about two months. The maximum sentence provided under section 447, P.P.C. is three L months or with fine which may extend to Rs.500 or with both. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts I maintain the conviction and sentence of the petitioner but alter it to the one already undergone and remit the fine. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.

H.B.T./M-636/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.