' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Praying to set aside the order of conviction passed against the applicant by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur A and Larkana Divisions at Sukkur vide order dated 4-9-2001. Since there is a provision of appeal provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, this petition is converted into an appeal under section 25(3) of the Act.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant who is an Advocate and permanently stationed at Moro Town while present before the learned trial Court in Special Cases Nos.86 of 2000 and 229 of 2000 while acting as defence Advocate purportedly made a statement before the Court that one P.W. Namely Mustan Ali was available on his shop at Moro. Such statement of the ,appellant in the capacity of defence lawyer made before the Courts was put to scrutiny and the complainant in the case was allowed to file documents in disproof of such statement. Certain documents were placed on record showing that on the relevant day i,e, 30-8-2001 P.W. Mustan Ali had appeared in M.B.,B.S. Examination at Larkana. The learned trial Judge upon receipt of this document issued a show-cause notice to the appellant calling upon him to explain why he should not be sentenced for contempt. The appellant submitted a reply on the same day wherein he while repeating his grievance that Mustan Ali P.W. Was avoiding to appear before the Court for giving evidence reiterated that he (the appellant) was informed by his client about the latter's presence in Moro. In any case, the appellant prayed for mercy and unconditional apology; Such prayer of the appellant was not accepted hence he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. Till rising of the Court and fine of Rs,5,000 and in default to suffer two months' R.I. More. The appellant paid amount of Rs,5,000 on the same day.
3. It is, inter alia, argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge fell in grave error and omitted a very important fact that the P.W. Mustan Ali was to appear at Larkana in his M.B.,B.S. Examination which was to commence from 2 p.m. To 5 p.m. And not earlier.
4. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.-G. Appearing for the State was very frankly conceded to the appeal by stating that the statement made by the appellant before the learned trial Court does not stand falsified as it was nobody's case that P.W. Was seen at Moro just before 2 pm. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the P.W. Could be available at Moro in the morning hours and in spite of such fact he could also reach Larkana within about two hours thereafter.
5. We find great force in the contention raised in support of the appeal. Resultantly, we accept this appeal and set aside .The impugned judgment. The amount of Rs,5,000 is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.