' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--Shafa Ullah Khan petitioner was convicted under section 193, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 vide judgment dated 25-5-2006 rendered by a learned Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali. In default of payment of fine the petitioner has been directed to suffer further imprisonment for three months. The petitioner filed an appeal which a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mianwali was pleased to dismiss on 18-9-2006. Hence, this Revision Petition.
2. Muhammad Khan etc. Have also filed Writ Petition No,12809 of 2006 for enhancement of sentence awarded to Shafa Ullah. Both these matters are being disposed of through this single judgment.
3. According to the prosecution Shafa Ullah Khan petitioner had, filed a civil appeal titled "Shafa Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khan and others" which was dismissed on 19-2-2002 for non- prosecution. The petitioner sought its restoration on the ground that his absence on 19-2-2002 was not wilful and that in fact he was on temporary duty at Vehari from 18-2-2002 to 21-2-2002. In support of his explanation the petitioner produced a certificate purported to have been issued by an officer of the Pakistan Air Force, which on verification having been sought by the Court was found to be bogus. Muhammad Khan respondent in the said appeal moved an application for initiating action against the petitioner for fabricating false evidence. Accordingly the petitioner was proceeded against by the learned Area Magistrate under Section 193, P.P.C. The trial ended in conviction. The petitioner was sentenced to R.I. For five years with fine of Rs,5,000 and in default thereof to undergo further S.I. For 3 months vide judgment dated 25-5-2006 passed by a learned Magistrate Section 30 Mianwali. On appeal the conviction and sentence was upheld by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mianwali vide judgment dated 18-9-2006 hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner opted not to challenge the conviction. However, he pleaded for the reduction in the sentence on the ground that the petitioner had in fact been misused by his learned counsel who had himself failed to appear on 19-2-2002 to prosecute the petitioner's appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a class-IV employee in the P.A.F. He has spent more than a year in jail, which in the circumstances of the case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submitted that the offence under section 193, P.P.C. Is one of the heinous social and moral offences as such no leniency should.Be shown to the petitioner. He referred the case of "Mst. Kareem Khatoon v. The State" (PLD 1984 S.C. 44),
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. These proceedings have arisen out of a civil appeal which was dismissed for nonprosecution. Learned counsel was equally responsible for the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal in default. The possibility that the petitioner was not properly advised by his counsel cannot be ruled out. The petitioner was convicted on 25-5-2006. Since then he is in jail. He has suffered incarceration for almost a year, which in the circumstances of the case appears to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As regards the conviction, I maintain the same and dismiss his petition.
However, the sentence of five years' R.I. Passed against the petitioner is reduced to the term already undergone by the petitioner. He shall however pay fine of Rs,5,000 or in default of payment shall suffer one month's S.I. Consequently, Writ Petition No, 12809 of 2006 also stands dismissed.
Sentence reduced.