THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No.310 of 2018

Present:      Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

Appellant              :         Muhammad   Asad   son   of   Muhammad

Hassan through Mr. Mumtaz Ali Samejo, Advocate.

Respondent          :         The State through Mr. Khadim Hussain,

Koohari, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing     :         17.04.2019

Date of Decision   :         17.04.2019

JUDGMENT

1.       Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks urgency on the ground that appellant is behind the bars since 2014, hence, requests that he may be heard. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh present in Court in other cases, raised no objection. Under the circumstances, urgent application is allowed and the instant appeal is taken up today for hearing. 

2-3.   By means of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), in Sessions Case No.695 of 2014 emanating from Crime No.60 of 2014 registered at police station Super Market, Karachi, under Sections 25 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. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, it was further ordered that appellant shall suffer S.I. for two months more. 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 09.05.2014 at about 1400 hours, complainant ASI Mansab Dar of police station Super Market, Karachi, in connection of FIR No.58 of 2014, under Section 392/34, PPC, arrested the present appellant and on personal search, police recovered one 30 Bore TT Pistol without number loaded magazine with four (4) live bullets from him and on demand of license, present appellant failed to produce any license. Hence, this FIR.

3.       Today this appeal is fixed for final arguments. Mr. Mumtaz Ali Samejo, 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 their efficiency. He further submits that appellant is in young age and was remained behind the bars for a sufficient time; 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 2014, 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. Khadim Hussain, learned Additional 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 and he has no past criminal history.

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 offender. No past criminal history against him is placed on record. He by appearance is of young age, so also he was remained in jail for a sufficient time. It is also stated by the counsel for the appellants that the appellant belong 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 has faced the agony of protracted trial since 2014. 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 are reduced to one which he has already undergone and fine against him is also remitted.

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

JUDGE

Faizan A. Rathore/PA*