1. The petitioner Abdul Qayum is convicted under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For one year and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default R.I. For three months by First Class Magistrate, Joharabad, Manghopir, Karachi, vide his judgment, dated 31-7-1978. The appeal filed by the petitioner from his conviction and sentence was dismissed by judgment dated 3-7-1984 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 14-10-1971 the deceased Shakir, a boy of 12 years was killed as he was getting down from the bus being driven by the petitioner. After usual investigation the police sent up the petitioner alongwith Mian Khan, the conductor of the same bus to face their trial under section 304-A P.P.C. Mian Khan was, however, absconding and, therefore, the case proceeded against the petitioner and ended in his conviction.
3. The defence set up by the petitioner was that after he had stopped the bus at the bus stop he re- started the same on the signal given by the co-accused Mian Khan who was conductor of the bus and as such he did not know if the deceased boy was getting down from the bus when it re- started.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi A.A.-G. Submitted the argument on behalf of the state. After hearing their arguments the petition was disposed by short order, dated 30-10-1985 for reasons to be recorded separately. By the said order the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the one he had already undergone and subject to this modification in the sentence the petition was dismissed. Following are the reasons in support of the short order: The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition on merits. He however, urged for reduction of sentence awarded to the petitioner. His main argument in support of the reduction of the sentence was that the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted litigation for 14 years. In his opinion this itself was sufficient punishment for him. No doubt the petitioner was challaned on 14-11-1971. The trial Court took seven years to decide his ease as he was convicted by judgment delivered on 31-7-1978. Thereafter, he preferred the appeal which too took nearly six years to be finally disposed of, as it was dismissed by judgment, dated 3-7-1984. The present revision petition has been pending in this Court .For more than a year as it was filed on 5-8-1984. Obviously the petitioner has undergone the mental torture by bearing with the litigation which has lasted for nearly 14 years besides having spent a lot of money in facing the litigation first in the trial Court then in the appellate Court and finally in this Court. It need not be stated that this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has on number of occasions ordered quashment of the cases pending in the lower Court for inordinately long time. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has informed that the petitioner has already remained in jail for one month and 19 days. Moreover, he is also required to pay fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to suffer R.I. For three months. Accordingly he frankly concedes that this is a fit case for reducing the sentence. He agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ends of justice will amply be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one the petitioner has already suffered.
5. For above reasons I endorsed the views expressed at the Bar with regard to reduction of sentence and consequently as stated above reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to the one he has already undergone leaving the sentence of fine unaltered. Subject to the said modification in the sentence, the petition was dismissed.