' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through the instant petition tiled under Article, 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners, namely, Ali Raza alias Kalo and Naser alias Nasri have sought their release from jail in case F.I.R. No,32, dated 22-2-2003 registered at Police Station Sadar Hafizabad on the basis of compromise arrived at with the victims, namely, Arshad Hussain A.S.-I. And Safdar Hussain, who appeared in the learned trial Court and got recorded their statements to this effect, but vide orders, dated 4-5-2006 the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court- I, Gujranwala dismissed the application.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with this petition. It is found that in the aforesaid case, vide judgment, dated 7-11-2003 passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners were convicted.
' Under section 324, P.P.C. Read with section 7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to 10 years R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo six months S.-I.; ' Under section 353, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years R.I.
' The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended. However, on an appeal (Criminal Appeal No,2020/2003) before this Court vide judgment, dated 22-7-2004, the conviction under section 7(c) ibid was set aside and sentence under section 324, P.P.C. Was reduced to five years R.I. While the conviction and sentence under section 353, P.P.C. Was maintained. Moreover, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The matter was not agitated any further as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the said judgment of this Court has attained finality. It is an admitted position that only Arshad Hussain A.S.-I. And Safdar Hussain were injured during the said occurrence. Afterwards an application was filed before the learned trial Court for effecting compromise with the said injured P.Ws. And seeking acquittal of the petitioners from the charge under section 324, P.P.C. On the basis of compromise. Both the injured P.Ws. Got recorded their statements before the learned trial Court on 3-5-2006 copies whereof arc attached with the writ petition.
' It is settled law that in compoundable offences, the compromise can be effected with the victims/heirs of the deceased at any stage with the permission of the Court. The learned trial Court seems to have disallowed the compromise while considering that it was a police encounter case.
The fact remains that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. With which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced has been made compoundable by the legislature and the injured P.Ws.
Were very much competent to compound the same. Moreover, for the charge of assaulting upon the police force to deter them from discharge of their duties, the petitioners were separately convicted and sentenced under section 353, P.P.C., which had not been challenged. The learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it properly and thus the order, dated 4-5- 2006 is set aside and while allowing the application for compromise, the sentence and conviction of the petitioners recorded under section 324, P.P.C. Is set aside. According to the report, dated 4-8- 2006 submitted by the Superintendent Central Jail, Gujranwala the petitioners have already undergone more than three years sentence, which means that they have already served out the sentence of two years awarded under section 353, P.P.C. And as such the Superintendent, Central Jail Gujranwala is directed to release the petitioners forthwith in case F.I.R. No,32 of 2003 registered at Police Station Sadar Hafizabad, if they are not involved in any other case.
3. This writ petition stands of accordingly.