' By this judgment I propose to deal with Criminal Revisions Nos. 267 of 1969 and 374 of 1969. The first has been instituted by the petitioners against the judgment dated 4-3-1969 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur; whilst the second is on the basis of show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the sentence awarded to them should not be enhanced if the conviction and the sentence awarded by the Courts below is maintained.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Dilawar and Ahmad Yar petitioners alongwith three other co- accused, namely Amir, Abdullah and Anwar, were sent up for trial before the Resident Magistrate, Kamalia, Tehsil Samundri now District Toba Tek Singh, under sections 325, 148 and 149, P.P.C. By Police Station Mamun Kanjan. According to prosecution version all the five accused along with one Salehon, who was separately tried, variously armed caused simple and grievous injuries to Yousaf Ali, a P.W., in furtherance of their common intention on 21-2-1967 within the limits of Chak No,514/G.B., Tehsil Samundri, District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad).
3. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Magistrate convicted all the five co-accused and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment as under by his order, dated the 20th of August, 1968:- ' Under section 325/149, P.P.C. To one year's rigorous imprisonment each; ' Under section 148, P.P.C. To six months' rigorous imprisonment each; ' The sentences were to run concurrently.
4. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated 4-3-1969 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentences as follows: - ' The sentences of Ahmad Yar and Dilawar petitioners under section 148, P.P.C. Was maintained whilst it was reduced to 6 months' R.I. From one year under section 325/149, P.P.C; ' The sentences of the other three co-accused were reduced to till rising of the Court under section 148, P.P.C. And till rising of the Court also under section 325/149, P.P.C. With a fine of Rs, 100, in default whereof they were to undergo R.I. For three months each. The sentences were to run concurrently in case of each accused.
4 No one has appeared for the petitioners. I, however, find from the record that in effect the petitioners had to undergo imprisonment for 6 months only in that the sentences awarded to them on various counts were to run concurrently. Out of these sentences they have already served about 11 month. They have been on bail after the admission of the revision petition on 8th of April, 1969, i.e, for about A 16 years. At this stage it will be unjust to incarcerate them once again to undergo the unserved sentence.
5 There is no allegation by the State that these petitioners have been involved in any criminal act after the above incident. The sending B of the petitioners to prison now to undergo the unserved sentence might on the contrary trigger enmity between the parties which must have been healed by now.
6 In view of the above discussion while dismissing this revision, petition I would reduce the sentences of the petitioners to that already undergone by them.
7 ' For the same reasons on which the sentence has been reduced as above, no further proceedings are called for in the connected Criminal Revision No,374 of 1969 based on show-cause notice for enhancement of sentence, which is accordingly dismissed.