IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Revision Appln. No. S- 13 of 2009.

 

Appellant:                      Muhammad Khan Bangwar, through          Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, Advocate.

 

Respondent:                   The State, through Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, Assistant Prosecutor General.

 

 Date of hearing:            30.04.2018.

 Date of the decision:               30.04.2018.

 

JUDGMENT

         

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-.   Through this criminal revision the applicant Muhammad Khan Bangwar has challenged the judgment dated 21.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, whereby he has maintained the conviction but reduced sentence of applicant from three years to two years including fine from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-, awarded to him by learned 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 29.11.2008. 

 

2.       The applicant was tried by the learned 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kashmore, in criminal case No.50/2008, arisen out of Crime No.60/2008 of Police Station Buxapur for offence under Section 13 (d) of Arms Ordinance, who convicted applicant for the above offence and sentenced him to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo S.I for  six months. 

 

3.       The applicant preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide Criminal Appeal No.03/2008, which was ultimately made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, who dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence recorded by the learned trial Court from three years to two years including fine from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-. 

 

4.       Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed present criminal revision application before this Court.

 

5.       Briefly, the facts of prosecution case are that, on 07.07.2008 appellant was arrested by complainant SIP Khalid Hussain Dahari of P.S Buxapur and recovered unlicensed T.T. Pistol of 30-bore from his possession alongwith one magazine containing five live bullets.

 

6.       During course of trial, charge was framed against the appellant at Ex.2, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, the prosecution examined complainant SIP Khalid Hussain Dahari as PW-1 at Ex.3; he produced copy of memo of arrest of accused and copy of F.I.R as Ex.3-A and Ex.3-B. PW-2 H.C Riaz Ahmed Soomro was examined at Ex.4. Then the prosecution closed its side vide Ex.5. Thereafter, the statement of appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which he denied all the allegations of prosecution leveled against him. He however did not examine himself on oath, nor lead evidence in his defence in disproof of the charge.

 

7.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.G and gone through the entire material available on record.

 

8.       The learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the matter at some length prays for a lenient view in the case, on the ground that the appellant and his family members are extremely poor, and he is the only earning member of his family; during the days of confinement of appellant in jail, his family members has suffered a lot. Learned counsel has further contended that the appellant is a first offender and that he has served out half portion of sentence awarded to him, and his conduct at jail has remained satisfactory; as reported in the jail-roll.

 

9.       Learned A.P.G. has conceded to the above submission made by learned counsel for appellant and extended no objection, if conviction and sentence of appellant is modified and reduced to a period already undergone by the appellant.

 

10.     I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appellant that the appellant and his family being extremely poor persons have already suffered a lot because of confinement of the appellant in jail. Perusal of the jail-roll of appellant shows that the appellant has served out about half portion of the sentence including remission and his conduct in jail is satisfactory. The appellant also appears to be first offender, as there is no such material on record that the appellant is already convicted in any other case. In the given circumstances I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter.  Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant including the period he was to undergo in lieu of fine, is reduced to the period of his detention in jail he has already undergone. With the above modification in the sentence of appellant, this criminal revision application is dismissed. Record reflects that vide order dated 10.01.2018 the appellant was remanded to custody by this Court in the instant case, therefore, it is ordered that the appellant shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.

 

 

                                                                JUDGE

Ansari/*