NAIMUDDIN, C.J.--The appellant was challaned under section 406/471, P.P.C. And was finally convicted by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Central) under both these sections. Under section 406, P.P.C. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,10,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For three months. Under section 471, P.P.C., he was sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year. The Presiding Officer Special Court (Offences in Banks) was pleased to direct that the sentences warded to the appellant under section 406/471, P.P.C.
Were to run concurrently. He was given benefit of the provisions of section 382(b), Cr.P.C. In respect of his detention as under-trial prisoner.
2. He was also convicted in five other cases under same sections by the same Court and was awarded same sentences except the amounts of fine, which differed and are detailed hereinafter.
The judgment in other cases are the subject of Criminal Appeals Nos.51 of 1986 to 55 of 1986. By the judgments in Criminal Appeals Nos. 51 of 1986, 53 of 1986 and 55 of 1986, he has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.80,000 in each case. In Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1986, he has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.20,000. In Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1986, he has been ordered to any a fine of Rs.1,00,000.
The learned Presiding Officer has further ordered that in all the cases substantive sentences awarded to the appellant under section 406/471, P.P.C. Would run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1986. But this concession has not been granted in respect of rigorous imprisonment in lieu of fine, which the appellant was ordered to suffer in default of payment of the fines with the result that so far as the substantive sentences are concerned he has to undergo in all the cases a sentence of one year only but so far as the sentences he has to undergo in default of payment of fines are concerned, he has to undergo a total sentence of one year and six months in all the six cases.
3. We have heard Mr. Habibullah Samo, Advocate for the appellant and M/s. A. Rashid Nizamani, A.
Sattar Pinger, S.I.H. Zaidi. Anwar Mansoor Khan, S. Murtaza Hussain and Faex Isa, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Mr. Habibullah Samo has submitted that by the appeal he has not questioned the conviction of the appellant under sections 406 and 471 of Pakistan Penal Code and of course, he has also not questioned the award of substantive sentences but has only questioned the extent of the award of sentences of rigorous imprisonment which the appellant has to undergo in default of payment of the amounts of fine.
5. There is no doubt that the sentences awarded to the appellant are legal. In awarding the lenient punishment the learned Presiding Officer considered the facts that the appellant is a T.B. Patient and he faced the trial for nearly eight years and has suffered irreparable losses, both financially as well as to his reputation.
6. Mr. Habibullah Samo, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in all the cases the end of justice would have met if the sentences to undergo by the appellant on default in. Payment of fines would have also been ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1986. We are of the view that keeping in view the amounts involved the sentences in lieu of fine awarded in each case could not have been ordered to run concurrently. Mr. Habibullah same then submitted that the sentences in default of payment of fines were reduced by another D.B. Of this Court by two months in six appeals, being Criminal Appeals Nos. J-19 to 24 of 1986, though on compassionate grounds. He therefore, submitted that in these appeals also the sentences on default in payment of fines may be reduced.
7. The learned Advocates for the respondents opposed the prayer for reduction of sentences. Mr. S.I.H. Zaidi learned Counsel for the respondent cited Allah Bukhsh v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 1081 which lays down that when an accused is convicted on a plea of guilty under section 412, Cr.P.C. No appeal can lie against such conviction except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. There is no cavil with the proposition. The only question therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the sentences could be reduced.
8. We think in the peculiar circumstances of the cases, notice whereof has also been taken by the learned trial Judge himself, the end of justice would meet if we reduce the sentences in lieu of fine which the appellant has to undergo in each case by one month only so that the appellant should undergo a total sentence of one year in default of payment of fine which will be equal to substantive cumulative sentence for the reasons that appellant is a patient of T.B., and that calls for some more lenient sentences in lieu of fines, and we accordingly do so.
9. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with the above modification of sentences.