MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus THE STATE

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- -- The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that appellant Muhammad Abbas was examined as P.W.2 on 22-6-1993 in a case bearing F.I.R. No.292 of 1991, dated 21-10-1991, for an offence under section 13 of Arms Ordinance. During his statement before the Special Court constituted for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Gujranwala Division. Said Muhammad Abbas stated that Klashnikov was recovered in his presence from Saif alias Saifu accused but during cross-examination he deliberately denied the recovery of Klashnikov in his presence. He was cross-examined by Public Prosecutor wherein he stated that his statement in examination-in-chief was incorrect. In view of his deliberate misstatement charge under section 193, P.P.C. was prepared read with sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C. Process was issued to Muhammad Abbas appellant who appeared before the Court on 4-9-1993 and admitted having made incorrect statement while appearing as P.W. The Court also examined the typist as C.W.1, who deposed about the statement of the Appellant. Thereafter the Court vide its judgment dated 7-9-1993, convicted and sentenced him under section 193, P.P.C. to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that he would not challenge the conviction and sentence but would pray for reduction of the same. Submitted that it has been more than two months since the appellant is in jail and in these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would adequately meet ends of justice. Argued that the sentence of fine was beyond the means of the Appellant, therefore, the same may be reduced.

3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The allegation against the appellant stands amply proved from his statement as well as from the statement of typist who appeared as C.W.1. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the reduction of sentence however,' requires consideration. The appellant did not claim to be tried, instead pleaded guilty at the very outset: In these circumstances, we feel that on account of his demeanour, lessor sentence be awarded. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period he has already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 is reduced to Rs.5,000 in default of payment of fine he shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Appeal is dismissed in these terms.

N.H.Q./M-1499/L

Sentence reduced.