JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Appeal.No.S-101 of 2023

(Gulzaman Dashti Vs. The State)

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For the hearing of the main case.

25.07.2024

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Mr. Shewak Rathore, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that on the arrest from the appellant was secured an unlicensed SBBL Gun of 12 bores for which he was booked and reported upon. On completion of the trial, he was convicted u/s.23(i)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week; he was further convicted u/s.25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned Additional Sessions  Judge, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 20.11.2023, which the appellant has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal appeal.

2.         At the very outset, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant inclusive of the remission is on the verge of completion of his sentence, therefore, he would not press disposal of his appeal before this Court on merit provided the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to one which he has already undergone, which is not opposed by learned D.P.G for the State.

3.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

4.         As per the jail roll, inclusive of the remission, the appellant who is an old man of 50 years, has already undergone 02 years, 10 months, and 24 days of the sentence. By not pressing disposal of his appeal on merit, he has shown remorse, thus, there is a likelihood of his reformation. Considering such factors as mitigating circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to one, which he has already undergone, it includes the sentence that he is likely to undergo on account of his failure to pay the fine.

5.         The instant criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. 

JUDGE