' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Maqsood Masih-petitioner was held guilty under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. By learned judicial magistrate section 30, Model Town, Lahore, vide judgment dated 25.5.2013 during trial of case F.I.R.No.308/2007, dated 18.6.2007, under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Nishter Colony Lahore and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each with fine of Rs.10,000/- each or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each, under the said offences. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 20.10.2014. He has called in question both the judgments of the learned courts below through the instant revision petition.
' It is not to be forgotten that the petitioner filed the titled revision- petition without surrendering before the police, after his appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 20.10.2014. He instituted this revision-petition along with an application under section 426, Cr.P.C. And surrendered himself before this court with the prayer that his sentence may be suspended.
Keeping in view the fact that the sentence awarded to him was short one, being one year each under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. And ordered to run concurrently, his sentence was suspended vide order dated 13.1.2015 in line with the ratio of Mazhar Ahmad's case, reported as 2012 SCM R 997.
3. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner, as per contents of the written application (Exh.PA), on the basis of which aforesaid F.I.R was registered, is that he by posing himself owner of a particular plot sold it to Amanat Masih (complainant) for Rs.1,00,000/- and received full consideration- amount in four instalments, i.e. Rs.30,000/- as earnest money on 16.7.2002, Rs.40,000/- on 19.12.2002, Rs.20,000/- on 22.3.2003 and Rs.10,000/- in the last week of April 2003; he also received an amount of Rs.13,000/- from him as fee for local commission/patwari and purchase of stamp-papers, but did not transfer it to him; on insistence of the complainant, he disclosed that he had purchased the said plot from one Shahadat Masih, who had not transferred it to him so far; the complainant contacted Shahadat Masih, who also told him the same story, that Billa Masih had not alienated the said plot to him; thereafter, all three, Maqsood Masih (petitioner), Shahadat Masih (since acquitted) and Billa Masih joined hands to prepare sale-deed in favour of the complainant qua the said plot on 14.9.2013, but did not get it registered and put off the matter on one pretext or the other; the accused being in league with each other, committed fraud with the complainant.
4. On completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the petitioner and his" co- accused Shahadat Masih, who faced the ensuing trial; learned trial court held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him in mentioned terms, but acquitted his co-accused on extending benefit of doubt to him; the conviction/sentence of the petitioner was upheld by the learned appellate court, hence, the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted on 19.5.2015 that the parties had compounded the offence and Amanat Masih (complainant) had dropped the idea of further prosecuting the petitioner, as he had been duly compensated by him. The complainant endorsed the submission of his learned counsel then and tendered a sworn affidavit (Mark 'A') in recognition thereof, the contents whereof he exclusively owned.
6. The situation as to composition of offence by the parties has remained unchanged as learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stances in unison today that the matter stood patched up in final terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on Ghulam All v. The State and another (1997 SCM R 1411) submitted that the petitioner might be acquitted of the charge or his sentence might be reduced to already undergone by him, notwithstanding the nature of the allegation that it was not compoundable.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab did not oppose aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and submitted that benefit of compromise might be extended to the petitioner-convict, but without upsetting his conviction as recorded by the learned trial court.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the' parties and perusing the record, it is observed that only one of the offences, the petitioner has been charged with, is compoundable in nature and it is under section 420, P.P.C. The petitioner may get maximum benefit of compromise there under. It has categorically been stated by the complainant that his grievance against the petitioner had been completely redressed and he had no objection, if he was acquitted of the charge. This particular assertion is fully applicable to the mischief of section 420, P.P.C., therefore, keeping in view the fact that the parties have resolved their differences amicably and voluntarily, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge there under.
9. So far as the petitioner's conviction under sections 468, 471 P.P.C. Is concerned, it is based on cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, led by the prosecution against him during the course of the trial. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses emit a sense of believability qua the allegation, the petitioner was tried for. I hardly find evidence, which bore the stamp of impartiality and credibility. The any inconsistency(-ies) or major discrepancy(-ies) in the prosecution impugned judgments looked impressive and irresistible from all angles, which left no space for the idea that they could be interfered with by any stretch of imagination. The observations recorded therein are impeccable and overwhelmingly impregnable.
The conviction of the petitioner under aforesaid offences cannot be called in question for any reason.
10. The factum of compromise is, however, a circumstance which may legally ease and assuage the worries of the petitioner. The compromise has generally been considered a redeeming feature, bound to bring peace and harmony in the society. It may bring the warring parties close to each other and motivate them to bury the hatchet for good. It is why, the courts often respected the will of the parties to compound an offence, may it be compoundable or not. In case of a compoundable offence, no extra argument is required to extend fullest benefit of the rapprochement to a convict, but in a case that is not compoundable, its benefit may still be extended to him in viable terms, so as to translate the parties' re conciliatory mood into an objective reality. The compromise always hints at noble spirit of the parties, which ought to be respected and given an assent to by the courts of law and this is what exactly being done here.
11. The requisite report submitted by the superintendent of District Jail, Lahore reveals that the petitioner remained in jail for seven days as a convict before his sentence was suspended, pending his appeal and he was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The other report, which has been submitted by the superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore reveals that he remained in the said jail from 15.3.2008 to 31.5.2008, as an under trial prisoner. The accumulative effect of both the reports is that he remained in jail for about 2-3/4 months, which may be sufficient for a repentant to learn lesson of the life. It would, therefore, be appropriate that his request for a shortened sentence may be given a sympathetic consideration, as he had fully compensated and appeased the complainant, which is manifest from his sworn affidavit (Mark 'A').
The petitioner's sentence ought to be reduced, as a natural consequence of the compromise arrived at.
12. That being so, the petitioner's conviction for offences under sections 468, 471 P.P.C. Is upheld, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period, already undergone by him. The fine- amount is also reduced to Rs.1,000/- each with the direction that he would deposit it in the government treasury within seven days from today. In case he defaulted in this context, he shall be arrested by the police and sent to jail till recovery of the said amount. If he deposited the fine- amount well in time, he would submit the receipt thereof with the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this court.
13. With the above modification in the sentence of the petitioner, this revision petition is disposed of.