ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 Crl. Appeal No.D-17   of  2004.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON'BLE'BLE’BLE JUDGE

04.05.2010.

For Regular Hearing.

Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto, advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel.

                             ---------------------

                   Appellant Ali Sher is reported to have expired and the proceedings of the appeal against him were accordingly abated.  Appellants Nadir Ali, Zahid Hussain and Mashooque are on bail as their sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 13.8.2004 and accordingly they were released on bail on 21.9.2004.  Today, the appellants are called absent, but Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted an application to the effect that as the appeal pertains to the year 2004, he requests for dispensation of appearance of the appellants for today’s hearing.  He further states that he is ready to proceed with the appeal.  The request of Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto is allowed.  The attendance of appellants Nadir Ali, Zahid Hussain and Mashooque is dispensed with.

                   We have heard Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel, and have perused the relevant record.

                   At the very outset, Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the appellant have undergone a period of two years and eight months as UTPs and as convicts.  He frankly contended that he shall not press this appeal if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them.  Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel, concedes to the above proposition.

                    We have gone through the record and we find that appellants Nadir Ali, Zahid Hussain and Mashooque have served out two years and eight months as under-trial prisoner and as convicts.  The appellants were convicted for five years and fine of Rs.5000/- each, under Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance and 13(e), Arms Ordinance, respectively.  We have also observed that as these unlicensed weapons had been allegedly used in the commission of main crime, in which the learned trial Court has already acquitted the appellants under the same judgment, which is impugned through the present appeal.  We find that the appellants have already faced many agonies during trial and during pendency of the appeal.  We treat that aspect of the case as a mitigating circumstance, hence we agree with the proposition suggested by Mr.Abdul Rahman Bhutto and conceded by Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel.  For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal, but with modification in the sentence awarded to appellants for the period which they have already undergone.  In the circumstances, the fine of Rs.5000/- awarded to each of the appellants shall stand merged in the above modified sentence.   The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and surety(ies), discharged.

                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                                   JUDGE