Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Rashid Aziz Khan Title: MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No, 412 of 1977 Date of Judgment:1989-09-19 Reported As: 1990 P Cr. L J 1150 Result: Sentence reduced
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Kasur and convicted him to 4 years' R.I., and fine of Rs,5,000 for an offence under section 411/75, P.P.C. Lie filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which came up for hearing before an Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who vide his judgment, dated 11-3-1979, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from 4 years to 2 years' R.I. In the present revision the petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against him has not been proved at all. Submits that the petitioner could not be legally convicted for an offence under section 411, P.P.C. Because no case with regard to the theft of buffalo recovered from the petitioner was registered though the complainant asserted that the buffalo was lost about six months before his making statement. Contends that the petitioner was convicted in the year 1979 and he has undergone about 7 months of imprisonment, therefore, the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. 2. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, no exception can be taken. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the petitioner A beyond any doubt. He was found in possession of a buffalo regarding which he could not give any explanation and the complainant asserted that the buffalo was his property which was stolen earlier. ' As far as the contention of learned counsel that the occurrence took place in the year 1978 and he was convicted in January, 1979, whereas his appeal also failed therefore, he may not be sent back to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, requires consideration. I have calculated that the
---
## Page 2
petitioner has undergone about 7 months of imprisonment, which in the circumstances of the case would adequately meet the ends of justice, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to send back the petitioner to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, after a period of ten years. 3. For what has been discussed above, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to one year already undergone. With this reduction in the sentence, the revision is disposed of. Sentence reduced.