Criminal Jail Appeal No.510 of 2010.
Date of hearing : 19.04.2011.
Applicants through : Mr. Abdul Razzak, Advocate.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J: This Criminal Jail Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Special Judge-I CNS Karachi dated 06.10.10 whereby the accused Rehmatullah S/o. Faizullah and Jan Muhammad S/o Haji Raffu were charged for the offence under section 6/9 (C) CNS Act 1997 in FIR No. 12/2006 of P.S. Excise (DIO) Karachi. The learned Judge after finding the above named two accused persons to be involved in transportation of drugs convicted them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 Million each and in case of default in payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two years each. However, both the accused persons were given the benefit of Section 382B Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 5.10.2006 Excise Inspector Waseem Khan, posted at Excise Intelligence Branch Karachi, alongwith Excise Inspector Khawaja Muhammad Waseem and other official staff were present in their official vehicle bearing registration No. GS-4005, when they received a spy information that drugs in huge quantity were being smuggled from Balochistan to Karachi through a bus. They reached the designated place, which was Moach Goth near Murshid Hospital Karachi, they waited for sometime and saw that a bus Qadri Coach bearing registration No. BSA-206 was coming from Hub side. On seeing the police party the driver of the bus tried to escape by giving speed to the bus and in order to escape from the site hit two persons riding on motorcycle and injured them. The excise police thereafter encircled the bus and made the driver stop the bus. The driver was apprehended who disclosed his name as Rehmatullah S/o Faizullah, one other person was also apprehend from the bus who disclosed his name as Jan Muhammad S/o Haji Raffu. On the search of Rehmatullah Rs.500/- and a copy of the NIC was recovered and from the search of Jan Muhammad Rs.200/- was recovered. Enquiry was made from them and thereafter they disclosed that in the secret cavity of the bus charas was stored by them. When the bus was searched the excise police found a small door near the A.C. cavity and when the said door was opened they found 10 plastic drums of blue colour. These drums were cut and they found rods of charas lying in the said drums. On further search of the bus they found registration book in the name of one Janan Begum w/o. Sher Muhammad.
3. The recovered charas and the bus were taken into possession and both the persons were arrested. Upon counting 160 packets of charas rods and 68 bundles totaling 228 packets of charas bundles/rods were secured. Each packet of recovered 160 charas rods was weighed and each packet came to 1200 gm, while the weight of each bundle came to 1000 gm i.e. in total 260 kg was recovered. Upon enquiry the accused persons disclosed that they were partners and were bringing the said charas from Pashin (Balochistan) to Karachi for supply to different dens at Karachi. Mushirnama was prepared at the spot, which was read over to both the witnesses, who after understanding it signed the same. One large brown envelope was sealed for chemical analysis and the remaining charas was sealed in 11 plastic sacs. Thereafter both the accused persons alongwith charas and the bus were brought at the office of Divisional Excise Intelligence Branch and case bearing No.12/2006 under Sections 6/9(C) of Narcotics Act 1997 was registered against them. After completion of necessary legal formalities they were produced before the concerned Court, who after finding them to be guilty of the charges convicted them in the manner prescribed above. It is against the above judgment that the present appeal has been filed by the accused persons.
4. There was no counsel for the accused persons, as they claimed themselves to be poor, therefore, on 07.04.2011 Mr. Abdul Razzak Advocate, who was sitting in the Court in some other matter, was requested to represent the appellants/accused in this matter probono, who graciously accepted the same. The case thereafter was adjourned to 19.04.2011, to be taken up at 8:30 a.m.
5. On the said date Mr. Abdul Razzak appeared on behalf of the appellants/accused and while elaborating his arguments submitted that the accused persons were not involved in drugs trafficking as no charge previous to this charge had been found against them. He submitted that the case made out against the accused persons by the excise police is not correct and pointed out a number of anomalies in the prosecution case. He submitted that only one packet of 1200 gm of charas was sent for chemical examination, which is against the law, whereas the prosecution should have sent samples from each packet in order to prove that all the packets contained the charas. He submitted that as only 1200 gm of charas was sent and if for arguments sake it is admitted that the accused were involved in drug trafficking they could only be hauled up to the extent of 1200 gm charas only. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Muhammad Nawaz Vs. The State reported in 2007 MLD 450 and Shakir Brohi Vs. The State reported in 2011 MLD 1846.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that no entry number of police diary has been given and only a vague remark has been made that some other officials were also available. As per the learned counsel this a vague observation and specific names with designations should have been given regarding the presence of the officials who were available at the spot when the said bus was searched. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly bus was in the name of a lady namely Janan Begum w/o. Sher Muhammad but no enquiry was made from the said lady. He submitted that boras/sacs were never opened by the police which also proved that the quantity of charas shown by the police to have recovered from the possession of the accused persons was contrary to their own statement. He submitted that in the mushirnama also a vague remark that other excise officials were present was mentioned, whereas no names of the other excise officials were mentioned, which also creates doubt in the prosecution case.
7. The learned Counsel further submitted that admittedly the bus was a passenger’s bus and was coming from Quetta, how come there was no passenger in the bus except the driver and the other accused person. He submitted that it is beyond apprehension that there was only one passenger in the bus while the same was coming from Quetta. He submitted that mushirnama appears to be fake. He also submitted that there are contrary statements in the deposition of PW-1 Waseem Khan as he stated that he received the information while he was on patrolling which is a contrary statement. He also stated that the bus while escaping hit two motorcycles whereas in the FIR only one motorcycle is mentioned. He also stated that only one packet was taken out. He also stated that there were other passengers in the bus while in the FIR it is mentioned that there was no passenger in the bus. He also stated that no name and whereabout of the motorcyclist, who were injured, was recorded. It is also an admitted fact that excise official Munir was not produced as PW. The packets in the drums were not counted and it is strange that out of total 160 packets why only one packet was sent for chemical examination without taking samples from each packet.
8. The learned Counsel also submitted that charas was recovered on 05.10.2006, whereas the same was sent for chemical examination on 07.10.2006 and no explanation has been given as to where the said charas was kept for two days. He also submitted that how all the formalities i.e. recovery of charas and counting of the same was made in a meager time of two hours only also creates doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that PW-1 Waseem Khan did not enquire from Jan Muhammad that whether he was owner, driver, cleaner or passenger of the bus. He also submitted that there were contradictions in the statement of PW-2 Saleem Masih who was also an excise official , as he stated that memo of arrest was prepared by Waseem Khan, whereas according to Waseem Khan it was prepared by some other person. He also submitted that no entry was shown by the excise officials with regard to leaving the P.S and the name of the persons who were on patrolling on the day of recovery. He further stated that in the statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. both the accused persons have denied the allegations leveled against them. He submitted that in view of the above facts benefit of doubt be given to the accused persons. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Faiz-e-Mola Vs. The State (2009 YLR 1380)
ii. Gul Amin Vs. The State (2007 P.Cr.L.J. 1483)
iii. Shabana Riasat Vs. The State ( PLD 2006 Karachi 325)
iv. Khan Bacha Vs. The State ( PLD 2006 Karachi 698)
v. Hayat Khan Vs. The State (2011 YLR 890)
vi. Meraj Vs. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 482)
vii. Abdul Quddus Vs. The State (2005 YLR 2805)
viii. Shoukat Ali Vs. The State (2004 YLR 356)
ix. Taj Muhammad Vs. The State (2008 MLD 797)
x. Ghulam Habib Vs. The State (SBLR 2007 Sindh 1673)
xi. Mir Muhammad Vs. The State (2008 MLD 1333)
9. On the other hand the Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, learned APG, defended the order passed by the learned Special Judge-I and submitted that the property was sealed by the Inspector of Excise Department hence it is immaterial who sealed the said goods, what is important is the sealing of the said drugs. He submitted that chemical examination report was positive. He also stated that life NBWs had been issued against Mst. Janan, which proves that action had been taken against her, hence the contention raised by the learned Counsel that no action had been taken against the owner of the bus was not correct. He submitted that the provisions of section 21(2) of the Narcotics Act have duly been complied with hence the observation of the learned Counsel that due legal formalities have not been fulfilled is not correct. He submitted that sample was sent within 72 hours, which is due compliance of the legal requirement. In the end he submitted that there is no enmity between the accused and the Excise department, hence the allegation that the present case has been foisted upon them is not correct. In support of his above contentions learned APG relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Muhammad Mushtaq v/s The State [2008 SCMR 742]
ii. Waris Khan v/s The State [2006 SCMR 1051]
iii. Jameel Khan v/s The State [PLD 2008 Karachi 374]
iv. Peer Muhammad v/s Government of Balochistan [2007 SCMR 54]
v. Balochistan Trading Co. v/s The NBP [1998 SCMR 1899]
10. We have heard both the learned Counsel at length and have perused the record and the decisions relied upon by them.
11. In order to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective we consider it appropriate to discuss the role of each accused separately. Accused Jan Muhammad was arrested from the bus on the premise that he was found in the bus sitting next to driver from where the recovery of 260 kg charas was made. It was stated that on the pointation of the accused person from the secrete cavities of the bus the said charas was recovered but the most important point which the prosecution, in our considered view, has failed to prove is to connect the accused Jan Muhammad with the crime, as not a single word has been said that whether he was a cleaner or a passenger of the bus. It is also an admitted fact that accused Jan Muhammad specifically stated that he was merely a passenger and had no knowledge whatsoever about the said drugs and had no connection either with the bus or with the driver. From the deposition of PW-1 Waseem Khan also it is evident that the main role of the drug trafficking in the present case has been attributed to the driver. From the personal search of Rehmatullah nothing objectionable was recovered. Neither any driving license was recovered from him nor any other document to prove that he was either connected with the bus or has any concern with the driver, which aspect has totally been ignored by the prosecution and by the Court below. It is also evident from the record that PW1 had specifically stated that there were other passengers also in the bus. Hence the question is why no enquiry whatsoever was made from those passengers. Even no record of those passengers was kept and the accused Jan Muhammad was apprehended on the sole ground that he was sitting next to the driver. Apart from this allegation no other cogent material was produced to connect Jan Muhammad with the present case.
12. As per the statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Jan Muhammad categorically stated that he was coming from Quetta to Karachi for treatment purposes as he was above 70 years of age and could not see properly. There is no denial of the fact that charas was recovered from the said bus but the most important question was whether the said person i.e. Jan Muhammad had any connection with the alleged crime or not? It is an admitted fact that no objectionable item was recovered from his possession and it is also admitted fact that the said bus was a passenger bus. Hence in considered our view a doubt is created about the accused Jan Muhammad that whether he was traveling in the bus as a passenger or had any connection with the said crime or not. Hence in our view connection of accused Jan Muhammad with the present case appears to be highly doubtful in view of the admitted position that the bus was a passengers carrying bus and there were other passengers also in the bus. Now the questions arise that when PW-1 Waseem Khan had admitted that there were passengers in the bus what happened to other passengers, whether any whereabouts of those passengers were kept or recorded, why those passengers were not made PWs, why their names and other details have not been mentioned in the mushirnama, why they were not searched by the excise department, why alone accused Jan Muhammad was apprehended and whether those other passengers were having any tickets with them or not? We may observe here that answer to these above questions were not available with the prosecution.
13. In our considered opinion the prosecution has failed to connect the accused Jan Muhammad through any convincing evidence that he had any exclusive knowledge of the concealment of the narcotics in the bus. In the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. as well as in other correspondence accused Jan Muhammad had categorically denied to be connected with the crime or had anything to do either with the bus or with the driver. It is also an undeniable fact that it was Rehmatullah who was driving the bus and not Jan Muhammad. The prosecution has failed to connect accused Jan Muhammad with the ownership of the bus and in these circumstances we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home its case so far as the role of Jan Muhammad is concerned.
14. At this juncture we would like to refer to a judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Qaisarullah Vs. The State reported in 2009 SCMR 579 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“10. Now coming to the case of Abdul Wali appellant. Undeniably according to prosecution case, car was being driven by Qaisarullah appellant and not by Abdul Wali. The Prosecution failed to connect Abdul Wali appellant with the ownership of the car. From the day one, Abdul Wali took the defence plea that he was an employee of Pakistan Air Force and he was given lift by the driver of the car when he returned from Nowshera. P.W.5, who is author as well as investigator of the case admitted it to be correct that Abdul Wali appellant informed him that he was serving in Pakistan Air Force, Kamra which fact was enquired by him and was found to be correct. He also admitted that he recording the statement of Abdul Wali appellant after his arrest wherein he stated that he had gone to Nowshera after the death of grandmother and was coming back to his duty and while waiting for bus, car stopped there and driver offered him lift which he accepted. It was also admitted by P.W.5 that in the first version Abdul Wali appellant had taken the stance that he knew nothing about the concealment of the narcotics in the car. The prosecution failed to prove through convincing evidence that Abdul Wali had exclusive knowledge of the concealment of narcotics in the car which neither belonged nor was being driven by him. Abdul Wali, as noted above was employee of Pakistan Air Force who lived and worked at difference place than that of Qaisarullah. No link between the two was established on the record of the case. The first version of the accused was recorded immediately after the apprehension and was to be given due weight. The plea taken by Abdul Wali is supported by circumstances of the case.
15. We also would like to refer to on another judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amanat Ali Vs. The State reported in 2008 SCMR 991 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“5. The prosecution case is that Amanat Ali, appellant, was driving the vehicle, the ownership of which was also claimed by him on the basis of open transfer letter in his possession. The fact that vehicle was being rum by him as taxi, was neither contradicted nor any evidence was brought on record to suggest that co-accused of Amanat Ali being his associate in the crime had the knowledge of heroin being kept in the secret cavities of the vehicle. The careful examination of evidence would suggest that in the light of circumstances leading to the occurrence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against Muhammad Latif and Zafar Iqbal beyond reasonable doubt. There was no evidence that they being companions of Amanat Ali in the crime have the conscious knowledge of heroin in the taxi car to treat them in joint possession of recovered heroin. In view of the doubt arising in the prosecution case to the extent of their participation in the crime, we while giving them the benefit of doubt acquit them from the charge and direct that if they are not required in any case, they shall be forthwith released from jail”.
16. We are also fortified by a judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Noor Vs. The State reported in 2010 SCMR 927 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“11. In the present case to the extent of the appellants Noor Muhammad, Bismillah and Abdul Sattar, the above mentioned facts have not been proved through any evidence either oral or documentary, therefore, they are not required to explain anything. The prosecution has simply proved their presence in the vehicle. Thus mere presence of the appellants in the vehicle would not involve them in the case unless conspiracy or abatement of the offence is shown and proved. Therefore, case of Qaisarullah v. State 2009 SCMR 579, a similar question has been examined and it has been observed as under:--
The prosecution failed to prove through convincing evidence that Abdul Wali had exclusive knowledge of the concealment of narcotics in the car which neither belonged nor was being driven by him”.
17. We, in view of the facts mentioned above and in view of the above judgments given by the Hon’ble Apex Court extend benefit of doubt to Jan Muhammad and allow his appeal. The accused Jan Muhammad is acquitted from the charges and he would be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The judgment passed by the learned Court below to the extent of accused Jan Muhammad is hereby set aside.
18. Now coming to the role of accused Rehmatullah there is no denial of the fact that when the police tried to stop the bus the driver instead of stopping the same raised the speed and tried to escape from the scene and in order to make his escape good he hit a motorcycle and injured the said motorcyclist. No convincing material has been produced by the accused Rehmatullah denying the fact that how it is possible that he was not having any knowledge about the charas present in the bus, which he was driving all the way from Quetta to Karachi. It is hardly believable that the driver had no idea or knowledge about the contents and articles being transported by him or present in the bus, which he was driving. No illegality or irregularity and mis-appreciation of evidence were found, so far as his case is concerned. The case of the prosecution is based upon the appraisal of the evidences, supported with reasons placed on record. No incriminating evidence was produced to show misreading and omission from consideration of the evidences. It is seen that the driver was using a means to carry the drugs by secretly placing them in the hidden cavities of the bus and the only rationale behind the same was to supply it to the designated places.
19. It is a trite proposition of law that items recovered from the vehicle in possession of the driver are presumed to be assenting to be in his control and in his knowledge. If the drugs are secured from the possession of an accused then it is normally believed that he has a direct relationship with the drugs and the burden of proof that he had no knowledge of the same lies heavily on him. We in this regard would like to refer to a judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Noor, cited above, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as under:
8. As regards Driver of the vehicle, it is important to note that when he is driving the vehicle, he is Incharge of the same, therefore, it would be under his control and possession. Hence, whatever articles lying in it would be under his control and possession. The liability of the driver, in view of provisions of section 27 of P.P.C., has been considered by this Court in the case of Sherzada v. State 1993 SCMR 149, wherein it was observed as under:--
The next point raised by the learned Counsel was that it is provided in section 27, P.P.C. that when property is in the possession of wife, clerk or servant on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code. The learned Counsel argued that the appellant was a driver, hence an employee of the owner of the car and even if he is admitted to be in possession of the contraband article on behalf of the owner, he cannot be said to be liable for that possession. But this argument of the learned Counsel is without force on the fact of it because section 27, P.P.C. is confined to the Pakistan Penal Code only, as the words “within the mean of this Code” appearing in that section clearly indicate. This section has not been made applicable to the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 as is evident from Article 26 of that Order where certain other provisions of the P.P.C. have been made applicable.
This Court in the case of Adil Ahmed v. Deputy Collector, C & CE 1991 SCMR 1951 has observed that in view of provisions of Customs Act, the drivers and owners were both responsible.
In the case of Rab Nawaz v. The State PLD 1984 SC 858, the liability of drivers was again considered and lenient view was taken, as they expressed their ignorance about the contents and claimed to be simple carriers. In the present case the appellant did not claim to be carrier.
This Court in the case of Nadir Khan v. State 1988 SCMR 1899 has observed that knowledge and awareness would be attributed to the Incharge of the Vehicle. The relevant portion reads as under:--
“We have gone through the evidence on record and find that the petitioners had the charge of vehicle for a long journey starting from Peshawar and terminating at Karachi. They had the driving license also. As being person Incharge of the vehicle for such a long journey, they must be saddled with the necessary knowledge with regard to the vehicle and its contents”.
20. We would like to refer to an another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashif Amir Vs. The State reported in PLD 2010 S.C. 1052 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“On the search of motorcar, out of its secret cavities, 193 packets of Chards and 5 packets of Opium were recovered. So the plea of the learned counsel that he had no knowledge about the transportation of the narcotics in the vehicle being driven by him has no substance. It is well settled principle that a person who is on driving seat of the vehicle, shall be held responsible for transportation of the narcotics, having knowledge of the same as no condition or qualification has been made in section 9(b) of CNSA that the possession should be an exclusive one and can be joint one with two or more persons. Further, when a person is driving the vehicle, he is Incharge of the same and it would be under his control and possession, hence, whatever articles lying in it would be under his control and possession. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Muhammad Noor v. The State (2010 SCMR 927). Similarly, in the case of Nadir Khan v. State (1988 SCMR 1899) this court has observed that knowledge and awareness would be .attributed to the Incharge of the vehicle. Another aspect of the case is that once the prosecution has prima facie established its case then under section 29 of the CNSA burden shifts upon the accused to prove contrary to the plea of the prosecution. Reliance in this behalf may be made to the case of Ismaeel v. The State (2010 SCMR 27) wherein this court, while relying upon the cases of Muhammad Arshad v. The State (2007 .SCMR 1378) and Mst. Taj Bibi v. The State (2007 SCMR 1591) has held that the Chemical Examiner's reports regarding Charas and Opium were sufficient to prove that the substance recovered from the accused was Charas which can be used to cause intoxication; the prosecution had discharged its initial onus while proving that substance was recovered from him whereas the petitioner had failed to discharge its burden in terms, of section 29(d) of CNSA. In this behalf reference can also be made to the case of Ikram Hussain v. The Sate (2005 SCMR 1487) wherein it has been held that in terms of section 29(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 unless otherwise proved, the presumption would be that the person who is found in possession of the narcotics has committed an offence”.
21. We also would like to place reliance on a decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Amanat Ali cited supra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“6. The case of Amanat Ali, appellant, being driver and owner of vehicle, would stand on different footing as he being in the exclusive control of the vehicle in which heroin was kept in secret cavities, would be deemed to have been in the exclusive possession of the heroin recovered from the car, therefore, the charge against him stood proved beyond doubt. However, according to the prosecution only a small quantity of one gram of heroin was taken from all the eight packets in a separate sealed parcel for chemical examination, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the report of the Chemical Examiner was positive, the crucial question for determination would be as to whether a quantity of one gram would be sufficient to ascertain the origin of the contents of all the eight packets. In the light of the facts of the case apparently, the claim of the raiding party to have taken small quantity of heroin from each packet for chemical analysis appears to be misguiding rather the circumstances would show that one gram of heroin was taken from one packet and in that, report would be relevant only to that extent. Be that as it may, in the normal situation it was essential for the raiding party to prepare a separate parcel of at least one gram from each pocket for chemical analysis and same having been not done a serious doubt, would arise in respect of the origin of contents of all the packets. In consequence thereto, it would not be safe to bring the case within the ambit of section 9(c) of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for the purpose of conviction and sentence rather a legitimate presumption would be that report of Chemical Examiner would be read only to the extent of one packet of the approximate quantity of less than one Kg. and in that case would squarely fall within the ambit of section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, therefore, the conviction of Amanat Ali, appellant under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 was bad in law. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained in jail throughout from the date of his arrest and has almost completed a period of five years of his sentence, which may be considered sufficient sentence under section 9(b) of C.N.S. Act, 1997. In view of the position explained by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we while converting the conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, to section 9(b) of the said Act reduced his sentence equal to the period already undergone by him with fine imposed upon him by the trial Court. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and shall be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. This appeal with the above modification in the conviction and sentence, stands party allowed”.
22. Hence in view of the above-mentioned facts we are of the view that the prosecution was able to bring home the case so far as the role of accused Rehmatullah is concerned. However it is seen that out of 260 kg charas recovered only 1200 gm was sent for chemical examination. We have seen that admittedly no sample was taken from the packets except the one sent for chemical examination hence in our considered view the accused could be hauled up only to the extent of drugs sent for chemical examination only as there is no evidence on record that the balance item was also charas as no sample was drawn from the other packets alleged to be charas. We are fortified in our view by a judgment given by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shakir Brohi Vs. The State reported in 2011 MLD 450 wherein it has been held as under:
“13. We have examined the case-law. Recent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the case of Gulshan Ara,(supra) is that the contraband material sent for chemical examination is to be considered for conviction of an accused. In the present case 1 k.g. of charas was sent for chemical examination and the chemical report is in positive. Admittedly, no sample was taken from any other packet except one”.
23. In view of the above discussion the present appeal is disposed off in the following manner:-
1. Appellant/accused Jan Muhammad is acquitted from the charges as mentioned above.
2. The sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Rehmatullah is reduced from life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000,000/- (Rupees One Million only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two (02) years to R.I. for seven (7) years and fine of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and in default S.I. for one (1) years more.
24. However before parting with the appeal the Jail Superintendent is directed to work out the remaining sentence of the accused Rehmatullah and if he had already served his sentence then in such case he should be released henceforth. The Superintendent is also directed to report compliance within 15 days of the receipt of this order to M.I.T-2.
25. This appeal is disposed off in the manner stated above.
Dated: June, 2011.