SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J.---Through the instant Revision petition, petitioner/convict Ahmad Din has challenged the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned trial Court/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore as well as learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions judge, Lahore dated 31.05.2016 in private complaint titled 'Haji Muhammad Siddique v. Fateh Muhammad etc.' for offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. pertaining to case FIR No.121/1999 dated 20.03.1999 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Lower Mall Lahore whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court as under:-- i) Under, section 420, P.P.C. three " years R.I. with payment of Rs.45,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo Six, months S.I. ii) Under section 468, P.P.C. three years R.I. with payment of Rs.45,000/-. In default of Payment of fine to further undergo six months SI. iii) Under section 471, P.P.C. three years R.I. and fine of Rs.45000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run pari passu/currently. He was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner / convict assailed sentencing judgment before the learned Appellant Court and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 31.05.2016, while allowing the appeal of the petitioner reduced his sentence with some modification which is as follows:- i. Under section 420, P.P.C. imprisonment of 15 months and fine of Rs.25000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo Imprisonment of three months S. I. ii. Under section 468, P.P.C. imprisonment of 15 months and fine of Rs.25000/-. In default of payment of fine imprisonment of three months S.I. iii. Under section 471, P.P.C. Imprisonment of 15 months and fine of Rs.25000/-. In default of payment of fine imprisonment of three months S.I.
3. The factual matrix of the instant case is that Haji Muhammad Siddique complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner along with others with the allegation of commission of fraud, forgery and using the forged power of attorney allegedly executed on behalf of Taj Bibi widow/the mother of the complainant and Atta Muhammad, brother of the complainant along with others co-sharers, which matter was reported to local police whereupon an FIR No.121/99 under Sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Police Station Lower Mall Lahore was registered.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction, which is not opposed by learned D.P.G., hence, there is no need to discuss the evidence. On reappraisal of evidence, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the learned courts below in offences mentioned above. So far as quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, it is noticed that the learned courts below while awarding sentences to the petitioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is a first offender having no criminal antecedents and the petitioner is a man of old age, as such, the case of the petitioner calls for a lenient view. Coming to quantum of sentence in this case, it has been noticed that petitioner is crawling in the corridors of the courts as justice seeker since 2011. It appears from the record that the petitioner is continuously in the gallows since his arrest. The sentences of awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this Court on 03.10.2016. The petitioner has earned the remittance granted by the Government from time to time. In this way, he has already served out more than half of his awarded punishment. A convict who desires for his rehabilitation, remorse and repentance to become useful person in society should be given a chance for doing so. Guidance is sought from Shaukat Ali alias Billa v. The State (2015 SCMR 308), Khuda Bakhsh,v. The State (2015 SCMR 735) and Mst. SuRhran and another v. The State (2021 SCMR 109).
6. Therefore, keeping in view the above noted mitigating circumstances, I am persuaded to take a lenient view, as such, in the interest and for the safe administration of justice, the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, would be adequate. Consequently, the instant criminal revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed with the modification that the sentence is reduced to already undergone, by the petitioner and sentence of fine is also set aside. The petitioner is on bail. His surety stands discharged from his liability.