1. ' This revision was admitted just to consider the quantum of sentence.
2. ' Learned counsel submitted that the complainant Abdul Waheed, the injured person, told the trial Court that he had patched up the matter with the petitioner. It was submitted that on this ground alone, the matter should have been dropped and the petitioner acquitted.
3. The offence being non-compoundable, the trial Court did not give effect to the statement of the complainant against his conviction. The petitioner filed appeal. That too was dismissed.
4. ' Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the first informant excused the petitioner, he may be acquitted.
5. This I am not inclined to do because the offence is non-compoundable. Nevertheless, I think that in view of the stance of the first informant especially when he has pardoned the accused petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to keep him behind the bars, He has already spent about a year in jail. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case.
6. ' The sentence of fine is maintained. That shall be paid to Abdul Waheed, the injured witness, as compensation. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.