Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
Date
of hearing : 26.05.2011
Date
of judgment : 26.05.2011
Appellant : Muhammad Jameel
Versus
Respondent : The State through Mr.
Muntazir Mehdi, APG.
Appellant
has been produced
in custody by jail
authority.
JUDGMENT
Aqeel
Ahmed Abbasi, J. Through this Criminal Jail
Appeal, appellant Muhammad Jameel son of Muhammad Saleem has assailed the
judgment dated 05.04.2010 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge,
Karachi Central in Sessions Case No.246/2009 emanating from FIR No.196/2009
registered under Sections 392/34 PPC at Police Station Gulberg, whereby the
appellant was convicted under Section 265-H(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
for five years and to a pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default he has
to undergo S.I for six months more. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. has
been extended to the appellant/accused.
The appellant is produced in
jail custody and submitted that he is very poor, having no relatives in
Karachi, hence not in a position to engage counsel. He further submitted that
he wants to proceed with the matter in person, however, at the very outset, he
has stated that he would not argue on merits, if he may be released by
maintaining conviction but by reducing sentence to one he has already
undergone. Appellant appearing in person further stated though the impugned
judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, as the learned trial Court did
not examine the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, however, he would
be satisfied and will not press instant appeal on merits if the sentence
awarded to the appellant is reduced from five years to one already undergone
and the impugned fine is remitted. It has been further submitted that he is a
very poor person and the only bread earner of his family, whereas his family is
suffering on account of his confinement in jail. It is further stated that
during imprisonment he has shown good conduct, whereas, as per jail roll he has
already undergone 4 years and 8 months.
Learned State Counsel have extended no objection, if by
maintaining conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant for (5) five
years is reduced to one already undergone, however, it is stated that the
amount of penalty can not be remitted, whereas the same can be reduced.
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, advocate, present in Court in
some other matter has stated that since minimum punishment under Section 392
PPC is 4 years, whereas appellant has already undergone 4 years and 8 months
his sentence may be reduced to one already undergone, whereas the amount of
penalty may be reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.2000/-, which he has offered to
pay on behalf of appellant.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
State Counsel and perused the record including jail roll in respect of
appellant/accused. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
same is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence on record.
Appellant has not pointed out any material illegality or error in the impugned
judgment, whereas instead of arguing the case on merits has prayed that since he
is a very poor person, and the only bread earner of his family, lenient view
may be taken. It appears that during jail custody, appellant, who is a
Youngman, has shown good behaviour, whereas he repents his misdeed and has promised
not to repeat such offence in future. It appears that he is the only bread
earner of his family and has learnt his lesson and has no criminal history. Learned
State Counsel have also extended no objection to the reduction of the sentence
awarded to the appellant, provided conviction is maintained.
Accordingly, instant
Criminal Jail appeal is hereby dismissed and the conviction awarded to the
appellant is maintained. However, while maintaining conviction and by taking
lenient view, the sentence awarded to appellant is hereby reduced from (5) five
years R.I to one already undergone, whereas fine of Rs.20,000/- is reduced to
Rs.2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant has to suffer
simple imprisonment of one month, with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
Consequently, with the above modification, the instant Criminal Jail Appeal is
disposed of accordingly. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of
Ghulam Sarwar v. The State reported as 2004 P.Cr.L.J 1747, unreported case
bearing Cr. Appeal No.240 of 2008 and Cr. Appeal No.08 of 2009 and Crl. Jail
Appeal No.304/2010.
Appellant may be released immediately on his payment of
fine of Rs.2000/-, if not required in any other custody case.
JUDGE