ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, appellants, were tried under section 302/307/39, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, however, convicted them under section 325/323/34, P. P. C. And sentenced them as follows: "Under section 325, P. P. C: Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique were sentenced to 7 years'
R. I. And a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or one year R. I. Each in default of payment of fine. Under section 323/34, P. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to one year R. While Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani were sentenced only to one year R. I., each under section 325/34, P. P. C. And another one year R. I. Under section 323/34, P: P. C: each. All the sentences were to run concurrently:"
2. On appeal the High Court reduced, the sentences of Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani to that period already undergone. It reduced, the sentences of Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique to 4 years R. I., each with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or six months R. I., In default of payment of fine. It, however, made no mention of the sentence under section 323/34, P. P. C. As that sentence bad already been served.
3. The present appeal is directed against the abovementioned judgment of the High Court reducing the appellants' sentence.
4. Before us the counsel for the appellants did not contest the case in merits but only submitted that the learned High Court had omitted to reconsider the provision of section382-b, Cr. P: C., which provides that the Court sentencing the accused to imprisonment is required to take into consideration the period during which he (the accused) was detained in custody for the offence in question.
5. On going through the last paragraph (pare: No. 7) of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge in Chamber had in fact, considered this question while reducing the sentences of the appellants: under section 325/34, P. P. C. From.7 years'. R. I. To, 4, years' R; I.
6. The appeal has no merit and is consequently dismissed.