Mst. GHULAM AISHA vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Another
This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, which had reduced the respondent's sentence to the period already undergone. The respondent had been convicted by a Judicial Magistrate for offenses under sections 354 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment for the former and a fine for the latter. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served, citing the agony of the trial process and the respondent's prior confinement. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Court's decision to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone constituted an illegality warranting interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellate Court's exercise of discretion in taking a lenient view based on the circumstances of the case and the duration of the trial process was legally sound. The principle established is that an appellate court has the discretion to mitigate sentences based on the duration of trial proceedings and prior confinement, provided such discretion is exercised judicially.
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the duration of the trial?
- Does the reduction of a sentence by an appellate court based on the agony of trial proceedings constitute an illegality warranting revisional interference?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Respondent Muhammad Bashir son of Abdul Ghani was tried by Judicial Magistrate Vehari in case F.I.R. No.87 of 1990 dated 3-5-1990 under sections 354/427, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Vehari who vide judgment dated 18-5-1991 convicted respondent under section 354, P.P.C. Arid sentenced him to imprisonment for two years R.I. Respondent was also convicted under section 427, P.P.C. And sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000, or in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
2. Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide judgment dated 12-4-1993 and the sentence of respondent was reduced to the extent of period already undergone by him. Through this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the illegality of judgment dated 12-4-1993 to the extent of reduction in the sentence.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. Learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment observed that accused/respondent had faced the agony of this case for three years and was kept in confinement before the trial as well as after his conviction, thus, considering the period respondent had undergone in the circumstances of this case took lenient view and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the respondent. I see no illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by revisional jurisdiction. Finding no force in this revision petition, same stands dismissed.