FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--The appellant, through the instant criminal appeal assailed the judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Shikarpur (hereinafter. referred to as "the impugned judgment"). Through the impugned judgment the learned trial Court convicted the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs,50000/- and in case of default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in addition to the aforesaid sentence.
2. The facts of the case arc that on 08.06.2016, during routine patrolling, complainant received spy information about a suspected person. The police party rushed towards the reported place where they found appellant who tried to escape but apprehended by the raiding police party. The complainant found a pistol in possession of the appellant, as such he is booked in a ease under Section 23(i)(a) of P.S. Made in FIR No,54/2016.
3. The prosecution produced three witnesses; all of whom are police officials i,e, complainant H.C.
Ubaidullah (PW-1), P.O. Anwar Ali (PW-2), and I.O. of the case ASI Mumtaz Ali Abro (PW-3), Gul Zaman (PW-4). The appellant also recorded his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code but did not produce any defence witnesses. On the basis of evidence so recorded, the learned trial Court convicted the accused as mentioned above by finding him guilty of the offence.
4. Haji Ahsan Ahmed Memon, the learned counsel, for the appellant; states that the case against the appellant is one of insufficient evidence and he has never teen involved in any criminal activity and is enjoying a good reputation in his locality. He prays for a lenient view regarding the appellant because he is not a habitual criminal and a first offender.
5. Mr. Ali Gul Shaikh, the learned DDPP supports the conviction and sentence and submits that the trial court has already taken a lenient view.
6. After an initial hearing, this Court has called a report from the concerned police station about the appellant, and it is reported by the SHO of P.S. Madeji that the appellant is not involved in any other case except the instant case in which he is awarded a sentence. From the report, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is fortified that the appellant is a first offender. In my humble view, there are good! chances of reformation and rehabilitation for the first offenders, and it will be least beneficial for the society to send such offenders to jail instead of providing them with an opportunity of reformation.
7. The Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Ordinance is a reformative measure, and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt, but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relentless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which .attaches to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the ,very purpose of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick.
Crimes are not always rooted.in criminal tendencies, and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The said Ordinance recognizes the importance Of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can, be reformed and rehabilitated in society. An attitude of social defiance and recklessness which comes to convict who, after a jail term, may think that he has no more to lose or fear, which resultantly may breed a litter of crime. The object 'of the said Ordinance is to nip that attitude in the bud.
8. The probation system in our country is usually considered as a boon for some of the selected offenders, but it is more than this limited scope. It is a system which provides a means of rehabilitation without the necessity of breaking up the offender's normal life and removing him from the natural surroundings of his home. It may be used as a tool to C raise the status of a convicted offender by making him a useful member of the society. The institution of probation may also be 'used for recompensing the society if it is integrated with community services for the benefit of the society. In this respect, I would like to take reliance from a case reported as Ghulam Dastagir and 3 others v. the State (PLD 2014 Balochistan 100), in which it is held as:- "The said language of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Ordinance does not exclude the making of a community service order. The court can impose conditions with regard to the offender's environment and which prevent a repetition' of the same offence and which rehabilitate him as an honest industrious and law-abiding citizen. Under the Rules also an offender can be required to take advantage of the social, recreational and educational facilities which might contribute towards his welfare and general well-being. The question under consideration is whether the petitioners would repeat the offence and would they indeed be rehabilitated if they were simply required to periodically mark their attendance before their probationer officer or is there a better chance to make them law-abiding citizens if they were to serve the community. I am drawn to the irresistible conclusion that the latter course with its element of reparation / pay- back would better achieve the stated goal, and one that would also benefit the community."
9. As the appellant is an amateur and a novice offender, therefore, it will be beneficial for him and the society alike to place him on probation. I, therefore, while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, give the appellant under the supervision of the Probation Officer for one year upon executing the requisite bonds subject to furnishing surety of Rs,10,000/ and P.R. bond of equalling amount. The bond shall contain a condition that during the period of probation, the appellant/ probationer shall restrain from any immoral, illegal activities and felonies and shall also improve his behaviour. There shall also be a condition of the probation and the bond that the appellant' shall render community service. As the appellant is a Muslim, therefore, it is hereby directed that he shall perform 'the community service by participating in arrangements of Jumma Prayer in a Jamia Masjid close to his residence or workplace. He has to give assistance in sweeping and wiping the prayer area, spreading the prayer mats and other ancillary work along-with the regular staff and/ or volunteers of the said Jamia Masjid. At the end of each month, the appellant shall obtain a certificate from the Imam of the Masjid or the President of the Masjid Committee that he is regularly performing such community service and produce the said certificate before the Probation Officer. The Probation Officer shall assure that the appellant is performing the regular community service. In the case of violation of any terms and condition of the bond including the condition of community service, the probation officer may submit a report before the trial Court. The trial Court is authorised to pass an appropriate order on such report either by imposing a fresh condition or extending the period of probation or even cancellation of the probation order. In the case of cancellation or annulment of the probation order, the appellant will be sent back to jail to pass the remaining period of his sentence. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms.