IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Jail Appeal No. S-02 of 2022

Appellant	Rafique s/o Juman Jagirani, through Mr. Abdul Khalique Kalhoro, advocate
The State	Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing	28-04-2025
Date of judgment	28-04-2025

J U D G M E N T

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.- Through this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 01.12.2021, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana in Sessions Case No. 664/2019, Crime No. 62/2019, registered at P.S Taluka, Larkana for the offence under section 24 S.A.A 2013, whereby the appellant was sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 24 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and convicted under Section 265-H(ii) Cr.P.C for committing offence punishable U/s 24 S.A.A 2013, and sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and also to pay fine in sum of Rs.10,000/ (ten thousand) and in default thereof, he shall undergo S.I for further period of one month. However, the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, has stated that appellant is only bread earner of his family and has remained in Jail for sufficient period and still is being dragged in the instant case; as such, he does not wish to contest this Criminal Appeal and leaves himself at the mercy of the Court. He states that if this Court while maintaining the conviction reduces the sentence to one he has already undergone, he would not press the Criminal Appeal.

3. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Sindh concedes that the appellant has remained behind the bars for sufficient period and learned the lesson, therefore, he has no objection if a lenient view is taken against him by dismissing the instant Criminal Appeal and treating the sentence to one as already undergone.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned D.P.G. for the State and have gone through the record. The witnesses have supported each other on all salient features of the case and there appears to be no worthwhile contradictions. However, the offence pertains to the year 2019. The appellant is behind the bars. The Jail Roll of the appellant was called from the concerned Jail, which reflects that the appellant has served out five years, five months and 21 days due to pendency of main case U/S 302 P.P.C. He has served more than his sentence which is three years and one month including fine and there remains nil punishment to be served out by the appellant in this case. The appellant is sole bread earner of his family and has remained in jail and learned the lesson as he has undergone sufficient period of his sentence. The punishment awarded to the appellant is only three years and one month, therefore, there is no legal impediment in accepting request of the appellant. Only in order to enable the appellant to reform and rehabilitate himself to rejoin the mainstream life to once again become a useful member thereof, by taking leniency, instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed but with the reduction of his sentence to one as already undergone by the appellant including fine amount.

5. In view of the above position, the office is directed to issue a release writ for the appellant if he is not required in any other custody case.

6. Instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the above modification.

                                                        J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A