' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This criminal appeal filed under section 24-A of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, is directed against judgment dated 15-12-2011, passed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Multan whereby the appellant was convicted under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 with sentence of R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,25,000, in default whereof to undergo three months' S.I. And under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979t for seven years with fine of Rs,50,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' .S.I. The appellant has further been burdened to pay Rs,800,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the aggrieved persons, in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. It was directed that all the sentences shall run consecutively with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant has been charged for inducing the complainant for sending him to Masqat for employment being an overseas employment promoter and receiving Rs,800,000 for the purpose. In this connection, F.I.R. No,32 dated 1-4-2010, was registered with Police Station FIA, Multan under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
3. After investigations, the case was sent to the court for trial where the appellant was formally charge-sheeted who during the pendency of the proceedings made a confessional statement seeking leniency in awarding the sentence and the learned court after recording his confessional statement convicted and awarded sentence to the appellant in the above terms.
4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
5. It is noticed from the record that the appellant is involved in 21 cases of similar nature and in all the cases, he has been convicted and sentenced in the afore-noted manner. The cases were decided against the appellant on the basis of his confessional statement recorded in each of the case registered against him. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution evidence was not turning up and that the appellant was induced to make confession with the undertaking that he would be sentenced for the period which he had already undergone, are misconceived for the reason that if the prosecution witnesses were A not turning up then the appellant had an option to seek his acquittal by filing an application under the relevant provisions of law which opportunity he did not avail before the learned trial Court. The second submission that he was induced to make statement is not evident from the record as the appellant while making the confessional statement had pleaded that leniency in awarding the punishment be taken. It was within the control of the appellant to reply question No,3 in terms that he be released from the case on the basis of sentence he had already undergone but instead of making this assertion in the answer to question, he sought leniency in awarding the punishment. After this submission of the appellant, it was within the discretion of the learned court to award any sentence which it deemed appropriate. The learned trial Court keeping in view the pendency of 21 cases of similar nature had deemed it appropriate to award the sentence in the above terms 'which is neither illegal nor is harsh in any manner. The learned court could have taken the proceedings in accordance with law in recording confessional statement of the appellant against which no appeal is maintainable, therefore, the appellant has no case for interference.
6. Furthermore, it is noticed from the order of the learned trial Court that while awarding sentence, it was directed that the same would run consecutively. To my mind, it is too, harsh to direct to run all the sentences, consecutively, therefore, this part of the judgment of the learned trial Court is modified with the observation that the sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently.
Another factor which is noticed from the impugned judgment is award of Rs,800,000 as compensation to the complainant of the case under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Law quoted by the learned trial Court in this respect shows that such like compensation is the expenses which the complainant had suffered for producing the witnesses and for his own appearance in the court on the dates fixed. In the instant case, it is noted from the case diary that the witnesses did not turn up in the court to make statements, therefore, in my opinion, no compensation can be granted under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Likewise, the amount has not been determined after asking details of expenses from complainant, therefore, this part of the judgment of the learned trial Court is also set aside holding that the complainant is not entitled for having the compensation as ordered under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment of the learned trial Court in the above, terms.