IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017

Faizan Aslam…………………..…………………..……………….….Appellant

Versus

The State…………..…………………………..…………………....Respondent

Date of Hearing & Judgment :- 29.11.2017

Haji Zafarul Haq, advocate for appellant

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG for the State

J U D G M E N T

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi East, in Sessions Case No.685/2015, intiated vide FIR No.71/2015 registered under Section 23 (1) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, at PS Awami Colony, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 24 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced to suffer RI for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default thereof, to further undergo SI for four months.

2. The case against the appellant is that he was arrested by the police and one unlicenced 30 bore pistol with magazine containing 02 live bullets was recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant places a certified true copy of the judgement dated 04.06.2015 passed in the companion case against the appellant and submits that the appellant has been acquitted under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. He also points out that as per jail roll available on record, the appellant has already undergone RI for about 02 years and 02 months out of total RI for 07 years, as such, he submits that some leniency may be taken in the instant case.

4. Learned DPG submits that the appellant is involved in other cases and sentence awarded to him by learned trial Court is correct. He opposed the instsant criminal appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the available record. In the instant case, the appellant has been convicted and awarded sentence of RI for 07 years as well as fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default whereof he has to serve SI for 04 month more. As per report of Jail Superintendent, the appellant has served 02 years and 02 months.

6. I have gone through the depositions and it appears that the witnesses are firm and there was no major contradiction in their instance taken before learned trial court. However, I consider that quantum of sentence is excessive. Therefore, while dismissing the instant appeal, I reduce the sentence as already undergone including the sentence in lieu of fine. The appellant is in jail. The Superintndent Prison concerned is directed to release the appellant abovenmed forthwith if he is not required in any other custody case.

J U D G E