Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD MANSHA VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 P Cr
1992 P Cr. L J 908
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J
MUHAMMAD MANSHA and others‑‑‑Appellants
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos.298 and 402 of 1991, heard on 10th November, 1991.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.399-‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act (XV of 1975), S.7‑‑ Sentence, quantum of‑‑‑Accused were convicted and sentenced for making preparations to commit dacoity‑‑‑Accused ‑had not caused any harm to any citizen and were just found sitting in a prepared state‑‑‑Accused were neither habitual offenders nor previous convicts and had already undergone 7‑1/2 months' R.I. each and also remained in custody for 7 months‑‑‑Period already spent by each of accused was considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice‑‑‑Sentence of 5 years' R.I. was reduced to one already undergone by accused and sentence of fine was reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.7,000 each in circumstances.
Ch. Nabi Ahmed Cheema for Appellants.
Qazi Mansoor Alamgir, A.A: G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Saleem were tried alongwith Channan Din under section 399, P.P.C. for having been found together after making preparations to commit dacoity while armed with .32 bore automatic pistol, .7 mm rifle and carbine respectively by Judge Special Court No.IV, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore Division, Faridkot House, Lahore, Vide judgment, dated' 24‑3‑1991. Each one of them was convicted under section 399, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each, plus to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 each, in default whereof to undergo R.I. for one year each. Channan Din, their co‑accused was also convicted and awarded the same sentence.
2. Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Sadiq have filed Criminal Appeal No.298 of 1991 while Muhammad Saleem has preferred separate Appeal No.402 of 1991. As both the appeals have arisen from the same judgment they are being disposed of together.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants have chosen not to press the appeals on merits. They have, however, prayed for reduction of their sentences of imprisonment to that of already undergone and substantial decrease in the mount of fine.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the conviction we have gone through the record and we are convinced even otherwise that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction. The same is, therefore, maintained.
5. There is nothing on record to hold that the appellants were habitual offenders or were previous convicts. No allegation was levelled at the trial that they had actually done any harm to any citizen. They were just found sitting in a prepared state. They have already undergone 7‑1/2 months' R.I. each and A remained in custody in jail for 7 months each during the trial. In the circumstances, period already spent by each of them in jail and fine of Rs.7,000 each, in default whereof to undergo R.I. for six months each, in our view, will meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. They shall be set at liberty after they have paid the fine or have undergone the imprisonments awarded in lieu of non‑payment of fines. SA./M‑147/L Order accordingly.