IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Appeal No. S 108 of 2022
Abdul Mobeen Lakho.
Appellants: Talib Hussain and (03)
Murad Malano Advocate.
Respondent: Complainant Mst.Sahiba
Arif Kolachi Advocate
Mr.Khalil Ahmed Maitlo
of hearing 13th February, 2023.
of Judgment ___
MOBEEN LAKHO, J:- The appellants Talib Hussain and
(03) others have filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 18.11.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur in Sessions
Case No.566/2022 (Criminal Complaint No. Nil/2022) titled Mst.Sahiba Mahar
v.Talib Hussain and others, whereby the leaned trial Court after full dressed
trial found the appellants to be guilty of the offence u/s 3&4 Illegal
Dispossession Act, 2005 r/w 149 PPC convicted them and sentenced to R.I for 08 years and also to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in
case of failure to pay the fine, they shall also undergo S.I. for two years
more. The appellants were also directed to compensate the complainant to the
tune of Rs.400,000/-(Rs100,000/- each) in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C and in
case of default, they will undergo S.I for 06 months more. The appellants were
further convicted u/s 148, PPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.20000/- each and in case of failure, they shall suffer S.I
for 02 months more. Beside, the possession of the land in question was also
ordered to be restored to the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants and
complainant have contended that the parties have entered into compromise and
they have filed a joint application for compromise between the appellants and
complainant through their respective Advocates duly supported by the affidavits
of the appellants and complainant. It is further contended that the possession
of the land in question has already been handed over to complainant, therefore
he has no objection to the acquittal of the appellants. The counsel for
complainant has further contended that the complainant has been given compensation amount of
Rs.400,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and he
has no objection even for the reduction of sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellants.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has
supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and complainant
that under Section 423(1)(b) and (d), Cr.P.C, this Court (appellate Court) is
competent to reduce the sentence.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellants, complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General
appearing for the State.
5. In the case of Taj Muhammad and another v
Muhammad Anwar (2009 YLR 559 (Karachi)), it was held as under:-
stage, a statement/undertaking dated
21.10.2008 has been filed duly signed by
the complainant and the learned counsel as well as by the respondents Nos.1 and
2 so also their learned counsel stating therein that complainant could not
press conviction, if appellants undertake not to interfere/dispossess the
complainant from the subject plots in future. Appellant undertake that they
will not interfere/dispossess complainant from subject property in future. Since
accused are remorseful on their act and want to reform themselves and complainant
do not oppose if they may be acquitted/or sentence be reduced and not pressing
for conviction, then legal position is that sentence and conviction awarded to
the appellants by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West in a
Direct complaint No.4/2005 filed by the respondent No.1 against appellants and
others under sections 3-4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be reduced
by taking a lenient view a sunder section 345, CR.P.C compromise is being
accepted and sentence reduced to already undergone.
6. Accordingly, instant appeal is disposed of
in terms of compromise/statement made at
the bar that the complainant does not press for conviction as he has already
been handed over the possession of the land in question and he has also been given
compensation amount and further the undertaking of the appellants that they would
not interfere with the possession and title of the complainant on the property
in dispute. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 423(i)(b),
Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV/(Hudood), Sukkur in Sessions Case No.566/2022 is
modified and the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of
their confinement already undergone and the order of compensation is also
recalled as the same has been paid to the complainant. The appellants are in
Jail and they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal
Crl. Appeal No. S 108 of 2022 is disposed of.