This petition has been called for several times, but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Since the petition relates to year 1967, I do not consider it appropriate to adjourn the case any further and proceed to decide it with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner was tried under section 409, P. P. C. By Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Magistrate Ist Class, Multan, and vide his judgment dated 17-10-1966 convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment: The petitioner filed an appeal, while the complainant made a petition for revision against the aforementioned order learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, vide his order dated 16-1-1967 dismissed both of them.
3. The petitioner has again challenged the order of conviction, passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, by means of this petition. Similarly, the complainant has also filed a Revision petition No. 400 of 1967 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. This order, shall dispose of both these matters together.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the accused, while acting as an attorney of the complainant and his partner in the business firm, disposed of nine Marlas of land, owned by the complainant, in the year 1961. Later on, on the strength of the power of attorney, executed earlier in his favour, be transferred the shop of the complainant, in favour of his own wife through registered sale-deed dated 22-2-1964 for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000.
5. The complainant after knowing about the fraud, committed by the accused got registered a case against the petitioner and his wife. Consequently, the petitioner was tried and convicted.
6. The prosecution produced 15 witnesses in addition to the documents, brought on the record to establish that petitioner had betrayed the trust reposed in him by the complainant.
7. The accused pleaded his innocence and produced five witnesses in defence. The defence version of the petitioner was that he sold the shop, owned by the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the sale price and directed the petitioner to deposit the same in joint account. The trial Magistrate, as well as the lower Appellate Court, believed the prosecution version by placing reliance on the evidence produced by the complainant and discarded the defence version.
8. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the petitioner.
9. The Courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of fact, after proper appreciation of evidence on the record. I find no reason to interfere in the orders of the lower Court, in the exercise of discretionary A revisional jurisdiction because they are neither perverse nor suffer from material irregularity. The order of petitioner's conviction, is, therefore, maintained.
10. As regards the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, I consider it expedient in, the interest of justice, to alter the same, to one already undergone, for the reason, that the shop in dispute was restored to the complainant, in the year 1964 and the petitioner had awaited decision of this revision for 12 years.
11. Since the sentence imposed upon the petitioner has, been reduced, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise.
The Criminal Revision No.400 of 1967 is, therefore, dismissed.