' MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, J.-- The learned trial Magistrate, Mandi Bahauddin convicted Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, Ashfaq Ahmad and Faiz Ahmad accused under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and sentenced each of the accused to undergo R.I. For two years. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences of the male accused to R.I. For one year each and of Mst.
Shahnaz Akhtar to R.I. For six months. All the three convicts have challenged their convictions and sentences through the present revision petition. This revision petition was admitted for regular hearing to consider the question of sentence in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in PLD 1982 F SC 239.
2. Mr. Muhammad Yamin learned counsel for the petitioners tried to argue the case on merits.
However, in view of the medical evidence of Dr. Nazir Ahmad (P.W.2) and the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh. P.B./1 he could not succeed to challenge the convictions of the petitioners on merits.
3. Since this revision petition was admitted only to consider the question of sentence awarded to the petitioners, it is not necessary to discuss in detail the merits of the case.
4. As regards the quantum of sentence, it is vehemently contendedthat in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to reduction in sentence. According to the instructions of the learned defence counsel, none of the petitioners is a previous convict and are first offenders. About male accused namely Ashfaq Ahmad and Faiz Ahmad, it is pointed out that they are the only earning hands in their respective families and their fathers are old ones. It is further pointed out that all the petitioners are married and have got children. Due to imprisonment of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, petitioner her children are being spoiled especially the youngest one who is of very tender age. The learned counsel also relies upon the circumstance that none of the prosecution witnesses from the public has supported the prosecution case and the enmity of the police against the accused persons has also been established. The learned defence counsel has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in PI,D 1982 F SC 239 which is binding upon the present Division Bench. The learned State counsel admits the legal position but argues that the facts of the Full Bench case are distinguishable from the present case. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mirza Bashir Ahmad's case reported in PLD 1983 F SC 171 in which the said Full Bench case was referred to but was distinguished on merits. The State counsel also relies upon the decision of the Appellate Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 1984 SCMR 265 in which the appeal of Mirza Bashir Ahmad referred to above was also considered but was dismissed. According to him, the petitioners deserve no leniency.
5. After taking into consideration the special features of the case, we are inclined to agree with the learned defence counsel on the question of reduction in sentence. Accordingly, while maintaining the convictions of the petitioners, we reduce the sentence of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar A from six months to four months' R.I. And that of Ashfaq Ahmad and Faiz Ahmad from one year R.I. To six months' R.I.
Each. The petitioners shall also get the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. This revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.