JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 498 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was accused of enticing away the complainant's wife. The trial magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, a decision subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge. A revision petition filed before the High Court was dismissed ex parte due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel. Upon grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court considered the legality of the ex parte dismissal and the merits of the case. Noting that the appeal had been pending for approximately twelve years and that the appellant had suffered a prolonged pendency, the Supreme Court, with the consent of the Advocate-General, Punjab, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction, appellate courts may suitably reduce sentences to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay and the ends of justice.
- Whether a revision petition can be dismissed ex parte when the appellant's counsel fails to appear at the hearing?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay in the disposal of the appeal?
- Section 498, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--Briefly the facts, which form the background of this appeal are that on 30- 10-1974 Allah Ditta PW filed a complaint against the appellant herein and three others under section 498, P.P.C. Wherein he alleged that the appellant had enticed away his wife Mst. Walayat Begum 8/9 months prior to the filing of the complaint. The learned trial Magistrate found that this allegation was established and the appellant was convicted on 23-9-1976 under section 498, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced to two years, R.I.
3. ' The appellant filed an appeal against this judgment which was also dismissed vide judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 9-10-1976. He then approached the High Court by a revision petition. However, when the revision petition came up for hearing before the High Court the appellant's counsel was not present and despite waiting for him he did not turn up. Accordingly, the petition was decided ex parte and was dismissed on 29-3-1977. .
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the learned Judge in the High Court was right in dismissing the revision petition ex parte and also to consider the merits of the case.
5. ' We observe that leave was granted on 5-12-1977 and that this appeal has come up for hearing today namely some 12 years later. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sword of Democles has been hanging over his head during all this period and submits that he has already suffered enough and states that even if he is held guilty his sentence may be reduced to that already undergone.
6. ' The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, who apneared on behalf of the State, does not oppose this prayer.
7. ' We also feel that in all circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be satisfied if while maintaining the conviction the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him.
8. ' The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. The appellant's conviction under section 498, P.P.C. Is maintained but his sentence is reduced to that already undergone. The bail bonds shall stand discharged accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- Haji Muhammad vs Ammer Muhammad and another 2022 MLD 536