THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2018

Appellant              :         Shakir Bin Aftab son of Aftab Ahmed

Siddiqui (present in custody), through

Mr. Nawab Jawad, Advocate, who filed

Vakalatnama on behalf of appellant.

Respondent          :         The State through Mr. Zahoor Shah,

Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing     :         19.04.2019

Date of Decision   :         19.04.2019

JUDGMENT

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.– By means of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Karachi (Central) in Sessions Case No.805 of 2017, emanating from Crime No.95 of 2017 registered at police station Hyderi Market, under Sections 23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, whereby the learned trial Court after full dressed trial, convicted the appellant under Section 265-H(ii), Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced him to undergo for four years with fine of Rs.30,000/-; in case of default in payment of fine, it was further ordered that appellant shall suffer R.I. for three (3) months. However, benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.

2.       The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 24.06.2017, appellant Shakir Bin Aftab was arrested in FIR No.94 of 2017, under Section 392/34, PPC, at service road opposite Junaid Jamshed Shop, Block H, North Nazimabad, Karachi, on the complaint of Hassan Zahoor and police recovered one unlicensed 9mm pistol No.CF-98-12001817, made in china, load magazine containing three live rounds from his possession. SIP Abdullah Shahani sealed weapon at the spot and prepared memo of arrest and recovery at spot. Thereafter, appellant along with case property were brought at police station, where instant FIR was lodged.

3.       Today this appeal is fixed for final arguments. Learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submits that on merits, though the appellant has a good case for his acquittal and alleged recovery of pistol has been foisted upon him by the police in order to show his efficiency in collusion with the complainant. He further submits that appellant is in advance age and was remained behind the bars for a sufficient time i.e. for about two (2) years; that the appellant belongs to very poor family and only source for earnings of his family; that the appellant has already faced the agony of protracted trial since 2017, therefore, according to him, he would be satisfied and shall not press the instant appeal on merits, if this Court may consider the period of his detentions already undergone and reduce the sentence alongwith fine to that extent.

4.       Mr. Zahoor Shah, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh, appearing for the State has candidly conceded the proposal on the ground that the appellant was remained in jail for a sufficient time.

5.       I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents, evidence as well as impugned judgment.

6.       In view of the record, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant is based on cogent reasons. The appellant is first offenders. No past criminal history against him is placed on record. He by appearance is of advance age, so also he was remained in jail for a sufficient time. Half portion of the sentences have been served out by the appellant. It is also stated by the Counsel for the appellant that the appellant belongs to very poor family and he is only source for earnings of his family; therefore, in the present scenario of the case, he has sufficiently been punished and he was attending the trial Court since 2017 and this Court since 2018. In these circumstances, he needs to be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself.

7.       Consequently, the convictions are maintained, however, the sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial Court through impugned judgment is reduced to one which he has already undergone and fine against him are also reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.5000/-.

8.       With the modification in the sentences, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is present in custody, therefore, jail authorities are directed to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal case.

JUDGE

Faizan A. Rathore/PA*