Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Ismail was tried by Malik Ghulam Mustafa, Resident Magistrate, Dipalpur, for an offence under section 411, P. P. C. With regard to stolen cloth worth Rs.
99. He was found guilty and sentenced by the learned Magistrate to one year's R. I. By his order dated 24-2-1972. He filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who by his order dated E-6-1972 dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to 9 months' R.
1. The petitioner has now come up in revision against the said order.
2. The only contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the price of the stolen cloth is only Rs. 99 and the petitioner, who is a young man, is not a previous convict, it would be appropriate to release him on probation under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance XLV of 1960 rather the- by keeping him in the company of other harden criminals. He submitted that as the petitioner is a first offender, corrective rather than punitive approach is necessary in his case. In support of this contention he relied on Khalid Latif v.
The State (1971 P Cr. L J313In that case also the accused was a young man and been convicted of an offence under section 411, P. P. C. For being found in possession of three loud-speakers stolen from the Muslim High School valued at Rs.
96. He was sentenced to 6 months' R.
1. Having failed in appeal, he preferred a revision. While accepting the same the High court was pleased to observe as follows "the having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I see no objection to the substitution of the sentence of imprisonment by a probation order as prayed on behalf of the petitioner. He has no previous conviction to his discredit and with the demise of his father on the 21st of November 1970, the entire family has become dependent on him. Accordingly, I allow this petition and direct that the learned Assistant Commissioner, Lahore, shall pass a proper probation order under section 5 of the Ordinance No. XLV of 1960 in accordance with the provisions contained therein. The petitioner shall be released as soon as the probation order is made by the learned Magistrate after he has executed a bond in terms of the provisions to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance."
3. The facts of the present case are almost identical and I therefore, feel that the present petitioner is also entitled to similar leniency. I, therefore, accept the petition and direct the learned Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal, to pass an appropriate probation order under the above-noted Ordinance.
The petitioner shall be released as soon as he executes a bond in terms of the provisos to clause
(b) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance.