AHMAD RAZA GILANI, J.---Petitioners Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Bukhsh and Javed Iqbal son of Muhammad Ramzan were booked in case FIR No,415 dated 17.08.2011, under sections 324/ 337-F(iv), P.P.C. registered at police station City Layyah on the complaint of Zakir Hussain. Both of them were charge sheeted and tried by the learned Magistrate Sec-30, Layyah, who vide judgment dated 28.04.2014 convicted and sentenced them as under:- i) Under section 324, P.P.C. to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment each. ii) Under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with Rs,50,000/- Daman each. iii) Under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment with Rs,50,000/- Daman each.
All sentences were ordered to be run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the convicts.
Both the convicts preferred appeal against their convictions and sentences before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah but their appeal was dismissed by the said learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 and convictions and sentences passed by the Magistrate Sec-30, Layyah were maintained. Complainant Zakir Hussain had also filed a Criminal Revision No,28-10R of 2009 for enhancement of the sentences awarded to both the convicts by the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed. Now convicts had assailed the order of conviction passed by the learned appellate Court through the instant Cr. Revision No,283/2014.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that on 17.08.2011 at 2.00 p.m. complainant along with his son Baqir Hussain were busy in their fields for preparing "Khaal". One Ghulam Fareed close relative of the complainant was also present there at a short distance and was cutting the tree. The complainant saw the accused persons/petitioners while coming there towards them on a motorcycle. They were armed with rifles and came near the complainant and his son and made Lalkara that the complainant party would not be left alive today and they directed to make their hands up. The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan made a fire {{MISSED 561}} the Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr.P.C, envisages bar on the exercise of revisional powers by High Court under section 439 Cr.P.C. which pertains to those matters which have already been dealt with by Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hayee and others (1987 SCM R 1371) question of law examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a under:-
(i) 'As to whether an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was competent after the exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr...13,C. in regard to the same subject-matter as if it was an appellate power to correct errors in the order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the concurrent powers of revision are conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge, In case reported as -Painda Gul and another v. The State and another (1987 SCM R 886)' it was observed as under:-- `There is a bar on the power of the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction with respect to an order made by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr. P. C. In other words if once revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge in respect of an order, the High Court would not be competent to examine the legality of the order passed by the Sessions order."
In present case, complainant of the case FIR No. 415 dated 17.08.2011 under sections 324/337-F(iv)
P.P.C. police station City Layyah filed Criminal Revision before the Court of Session for the enhancement of the sentences awarded to the convicts/present petitioners by the trial Court which was dismissed. In view of discussion made above, finality has been attached to the order of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the matter of enhancement of sentence of convicts/petitioners and here High Court is debarred from entertaining revision petition under section 439, Cr.PC if by way of that, enhancement of sentence to the present petitioners/convicts is sought. Instant revision petition has been already exhausted remedy by way of appeal against conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the question of maintainability of second revision petition in the instant case is misconceived accordingly is rejected and it is held that this revision petition is competent being the first one filed by the convicts/petitioners against their conviction.
7. Learned counsel representing the convicts does not seriously challenge the conviction of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners have served 3-1/2 years as substantive sentence if the remissions earned are included in the period of imprisonment their not on inimical terms and this occurrence erupted over a petty matter. It is further noticed that Dr. Imran Zafar who appeared before the learned trial Court as PW-1 had stated that injuries caused to the injured Zakir Hussain can be caused with on fire keeping in view the stated facts and circumstances of the case it will serve the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioners by appellate Court and trial Court are reduced sentences in form of Daman shall remain intact. Consequently this petition is dismissed with the modification that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners/convicts are reduced to already undergone by them. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.