The petitioner Mazhar Ahmad was tried in a case bearing F.I.R No, 06 dated 11.01.2008 under Sections 161, 420 PPC read with Section 5(2)47 PCA ACE, Layyah.
2. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, D.G. Khan vide judgment dated 26.03.2011 convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 420 PPC and under Section 5(2)47 PCA to 7 years R.I and a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default of which to further undergo 6 months R.I on two counts. Both the said sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him.
3. At the time of pronouncement of judgment by the learned trial Court dated 26.03.2011, the petitioner fled away from the Court. His bail bonds were cancelled and letter was issued to the DPO for his arrest. It was on 5.04.2011 i,e, after about one month and 10 days of the passing of the judgment, that the petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No, 264 of 2011 and the Office raised the objection on 05.04.2011 that without surrendering, the appeal was not maintainable. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2011, for the time being, over ruled the objection and on the same day the main appeal was taken up for hearing, which was admitted for regular hearing and the notices were issued on the same day. The Crl. Misc. No, 01/2011 was also moved alongwith the main appeal and the petitioner was admitted w interim bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of post-arrest bail, which was allowed by the August Supreme Court, the August Supreme Court fixed some criteria for proving the case and on merits the case does not stand proved. He pointed out some contradictions in the evidence. He further contended that since the petitioner has surrendered before the competent Court of law and so his sentence can be suspended. He placed reliance on the order dated 22.01.1998 passed in Crl. Misc. No, 1 of 1998 in Crl. Appeal No, 34 of 1998.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG opposed the petition and contended that after passing of the impugned judgment, the petitioner absconded and the absconder looses some rights and so at this stage, the petition is not maintainable. They placed reliance on 2002 PCr.L.J 1006, NLR 1999 Criminal 279 and 2010 P Cr.L.J 1426.
6. Arguments heard; record perused.
7. As has been mentioned that the impugned judgment is dated .26.03.2011. In the last para of the judgment, it is specifically mentioned that the convict had fled away and a letter was issued to the DPO for his arrest. The convict did not surrender before this Court even just after passing of the sentence and remained absconder for more than one month and thereafter on 05.4.2011, he preferred the appeal alongwith this petition. In such eventuality, I am of the opinion that the petitioner remained, absconder after the pronouncement of judgment for more-than one month and did not 'surrender before any competent authority for such a long time. In a case reported in 2002 PCr.LJ 1006, it was observed that the fugitive from law looses some normal rights. In this way, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed. However, after the arrest of the petitioner, he may move the petition for suspension of his sentence on merits, if so advised. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for information.