C.M.A. No,14 of 2009 JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.--- The applicant has filed instant application, seeking correction in the order dated 5-12-2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No,103 of 2008, wherein while reducing the sentence of appellant from three years' R.I. To that of already undergone, nothing has been mentioned in respect of sentence of fine of Rs,50,000 imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Killa Abdullah at Chaman vide judgment dated 21-11-2008.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has deposited the amount of fine under objection, because he was not allowed to be released. He has next contended that this Court while deciding the fate of appeal, has clearly mentioned that the appellant shall be released forthwith, therefore, it amounts to setting aside the portion of judgment regarding fine, as such, the mount of fine deposited by him may be refunded.
3. Learned P.G. Has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that fine as imposed by the trial Court has rightly been deposited by the appellant. The learned State counsel has also filed an application for review of the order dated 5-12-2008 of this Court.
4. I have considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as earlier order dated 5-12-2008 passed by this Court, relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "There is nothing on record, which could suggest that appellant was previous convict or habitual offender and the fact that he has been acquitted from the main case and appellant has already been in custody for more than four months, in my considered view, the sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge for keeping .22 bore pistol and two cartridges is too excessive, as such; I am inclined to reduce sentence of three years to that of already undergone. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case."
5. Admittedly, the order is silent about the fine of Rs,50,000, which the trial Court has imposed upon the appellant. It has to be seen whether the earlier order passed in criminal jurisdiction can be rectified B or reviewed. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Empowers the High Court to rectify its own order, if relevant fact has mistakenly been not recorded in the same, which effect the right of party. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 1516 relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--- "A close examination of the above case-law clearly reflects that sanctity of finality is attached to a judgment passed by a Criminal Court by virtue of section 369, Cr.P.C. But there are conditions where the Court have reviewed/recalled their judgment and order if it was found to have been passed without C jurisdiction; an order passed without adjudication on merits; if the judgment/order was passed in violation of any law and/or such judgment or order was obtained by playing fraud upon the Courts. Thus there is an inherent power in Court to recall or review such orders."
6. In view of the powers conferred under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And the aforesaid reported case-law, this Court can review or rectify the order, because it does not contain any finding regarding fine imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant.
7. When the aforesaid case-law and provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was confronted to learned P.G., he has raised no objection, if correction is made in the order only to the extent of fine.
Thus, the order dated 5-12-2008 is rectified and fine awarded by the trial Court amounting to Rs,50,000 is reduced to that of Rs,5,000. Since the amount of Rs,50,000 has already been deposited with Government Treasury through Superintendent District Jail, Quetta, therefore, the appellant Habib-ur-Rehman son of Qari Abdul Samad is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs,45,000, as mentioned above. The Treasury Officer is directed to refund the said amount to the appellant after due verification.
' This disposes of C.M.A. No,14 of 2009.