' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J. Ivasir Mehmood, A.S.-I. Posted at. Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad was cited as prosecution witness in case F.I.R. No.448 of 1993, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 lodged at Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad.
During the course of trial, he was served with summonses/notices to appear before the learned trial Court to record his statement thrice, however, he failed to attend the court and on 3-11-2004 he was served with notice under section 174, P.P.C. The appellant submitted its reply,, however being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant, the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 3-11-2004, having found the appellant committed willful disobedience, convicted him under section 174, P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer S.I. For six months with fine of Rs.1,000. Conviction and sentence has been assailed by the appellant by means of instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, did not argue the case on merits against the conviction of the appellant, however, only prayed for reduction in his sentence.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General did not oppose the contention, however, supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have heard the arguments at vanced by both sides and gone through the record.
5. As the learned counsel for the appellant has not opted to assail his conviction, therefore, we are not inclined to discuss in detail the merits of the case, however, we find that despite issuance of summons/notices thrice, which were also served upon him, he failed to appear before the learned trial Court to record his statement. The defence version advanced by the appellant in the shape of reply to the notice is of least importance mainly for the reason that it is settled principle of law that truth is attached to the judicial proceedings. We, thus, see no infirmity in the impugned judgment to the extent of his conviction and find no ground or justification to warrant interference in the same. We, thus, have been persuaded to maintain the conviction.
6. However, as regards the question of his sentence, we have been convinced to reduce the same for the reasons that (i) firstly he is not involved in a criminal case rather he was punished on account of failure to appear before the learned trial Court; (ii) secondly the appellant has already undergone one and a half months of his sentence out of total imprisonment of six months. In addition to above, he might have been remained under suspension on account of his conviction.
Moreover, appellant's position in society having received a serious jolt on account of his conviction and (iii) last but not least, if his sentence is upheld, he might be axed from his job and his whole family, which has already suffered to a great deal, shall frustrate. We have,' also carefully gone through the record and fail to find any saza slip (conviction slip) annexed with the file, meaning thereby that the appellant has not been convicted earlier by any court of law.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from six months as inflicted by the learned trial Court to already undergone by him. However, this sentence of fine would remain as directed by the learned trial Court and he is directed to deposit the fine within one month. With the maintaining his conviction and the above reduction in his sentence, the instant appeal is dismissed.