Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BAKHSH VS Respondent: NOOR AHMAD
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 568
[Lahore]
Before Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner
versus
NOOR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Criminal Revision No.259 of 1977, decided on 14th June, 1987.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 323 & 354‑‑Sentence, legality of‑‑Accused neither remained in police custody nor in judicial lock‑up even for a single day, during investigation or trial or after conviction‑‑Accused on conviction and sentence of 2 years' R.I. by Trial Court was not sent to judicial lock‑up but allowed bail on that very day by suspending sentence‑‑Accused's sentence reduced to one already undergone by him on appeal‑‑Held: Accused not having undergone any imprisonment either as undertrial prisoner or after his conviction, there was hardly any imprisonment which was undergone by accused‑‑Order of Appellate Court, was therefore, illegal‑‑Accused, however, was sentenced to fine or in default rigorous imprisonment on each count by High Court.
C . M. Latif Rawn for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State. Sabir Nasim for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 14th June, 1987.
JUDGMENT
Facts necessary for this judgment are that a case under sections 354 and 323, P.P.C. was registered against Noor Ahmad accused respondent No. 1 vide F.I.R. No. 122, dated 3‑9‑1974. He was arrested on 29‑9‑1974. The Investigating Officer allowed him bail on that very day as the offences were bailable, The challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class Joharabad who recorded evidence and vide judgment dated 31‑10‑1976 sentenced Noor Ahmad to two years' R.I. under section 354 and one year's R.I. under section 323, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Noor Ahmad was not taken in custody after announcement of the judgment by the learned trial Magistrate. He was allowed bail by suspension of his sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C, on the same day. This bail was confirmed by the appellate Court on 7‑11‑1975. The appeal by Noor Ahmad came up for final hearing before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha who vide the impugned judgment dated 15‑2‑1977 dismissed his appeal but taking a lenient view of the matter altered the sentence of Noor Ahmad to one already undergone by him. Hence this revision.
2. A perusal of the above facts would show that Noor Ahmad accused did not remain either in police custody or in judicial lock up l even for one day during the investigation or trial. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate on 31‑10‑1975 and allowed bail on that very day by suspension of his sentence. He was not sent to lock up after conviction. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the bail allowed by the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed but the sentence was reduced to one already undergone by Noor Ahmad. This order was not legal because apparently Noor Ahmad had not undergone any imprisonment as an undertrial prisoner or after his conviction. As such I am of the view that though the conviction under sections 354, 323, P.P.C. was rightly maintained but the, sentence awarded by the lower appellate Court was not legal. I, therefore, accept this revision and sentence Noor Ahmad to a fine of Rs.1000 or in default 3 months' R.I. under section 323, P.P.C. and to a fine of Rs.4000 under section 354, PPC or in default 4 months' R.I. Noor Ahmad will pay total sum of Rs.5000 within 30 days of this order. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.3000 will be paid; to Mst. Sahban as compensation.
S.G.D./M‑507/L Order accordingly.