QURBAN SADIQ IKRAM, J-This is an appeal by Ghulam Qadir who vide judgment dated 12.6.1986, passed by Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Khan Yusufi, Special Judge central, Rawalpindi, Camp at Faisalabad, was sentenced to 2 years R.I.Under section 17 of Emigration Ordinance and to 5 years R.I. Plus fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) or in defauIt two years R.I. Under section 22 Emigration Act. The sentences of imprisonments were ordered to run concurrently. It was ordered that out of fine, if realised, a sum of Rs.90,000/- will be paid to the effected witnesses as compensation.
2. The present case against Ghulam Qadir accused-appellant and Muhammad Amin absconder was registered vide formal FIR Ex. PB on 28.11.1983 on the basis of complaint Ex. PA recorded by S.I.
Tariq Javed of F.IA. Passport Cell, Faisalabad. It was alleged in the complaint Ex.PA that Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Amin received a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from Muhammad Yousaf, Murad Ali, Muhammad Aslam son of Fazal Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam son of Ishaq, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Siddique and others by extending promise that they will be sent abroad for job. The two accused neither arranged any job for them abroad nor returned the amount received by them.
The police after completion of investigation filed challan. The proceedings against Muhammad Amin absconder were held under section 512 Cr.P.C. Ghulam Qadir faced the trial for offences under section 17 and section 22 Emigration Act.
3. In support of its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. PW.l Mukhtar Ali stated that the accused demanded Rs. 14000/- from him with promise that he would arrange a job in Saudi Arabia. He further stated that he paid Rs.27,000/- along with passports and identity cards on behalf of Aslam, Murad Ali, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Rafiq PWs. It was stated by Mukhtar Ali PW.l that after receiving telephone call from Ghulam Qadir appellant, he went to Karachi along with the remaining amount of Rs. 28,000/- and the intending emigrant. He paid the said amount to Ghulam Qadir accused. Muhammad Rafiq (Rafiq (not examined) was sent abroad but his whereabouts were not known. The remaining persons were not sent to any foreign country nor their amount was returned. This witness was confronted with his previous statement. I have examined the improvements made by him during trial which are not material and does not effect merits of the case. These improvements are in fact explanation or details of the statement made by him earlier before the police. He admitted that there was dispute between Dilshad Shah PW and M.Amin absconding accused etc. Which was referred to Martial Law Authorities. PW.2 Muhammad Siddiquc, PW.5 Muhammad Yousaf, PW.6 Mukhtar Ahmad, PW.7 Fazal Muhammad and his son Muhammad Aslam PW.9 and Farid Ali PW.8 fully supported Mukhtar PW.l. It was stated by Muhammad Ashraf PW.3 that he had paid Rs.18,000/- along with passport and identity card of his brother Muhammad Aslam to Ghulam Qadir accused. The said Muhammad Aslam was sent to Saudi Arabia by the accused who through a letter informed him that the accused played fraud with them. PWA Hussain stated that the accused Ghulam Qadir received Rs. 28,000/- in his presence and that he defrauded Muhmmad Yousaf etc. Witnesses. In cross examination he admitted his enmity with the accused.
On perusal of a statement I find that prosecution witnesses had not given any money to the accused through Syed Dilshad Shah. The prosecution witnesses were Murid (disciples) of Dilshad Shah but this would not mean that these witnesses were making false statement in Court. Dilshad Shah had his own dealing with the accused. There were differences between them but I find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence.
In view of the above discussion the conviction of Ghulam Qadir accused-appellant under section 17 and section 22 of Emigration Act is maintained. Mr. Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, does not challenge the conviction of Ghulam Qadir before me under the said two offences. It is conceded by him that, the prosecution having proved its case against the appellant, the conviction was rightly recorded. It is however, vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial against the accused remained pending for about 3 years and that he is in lock up for the last about 2 years since his conviction vide the impugned judgment. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the sentence be reduced. The learned State counsel controverts his contention.
4. I have considered the question of sentence awarded to the appellant. It is in evidence that Ghulam Qadir accused paid some money to Muhammad Amin absconding accused. In view of this fact I consider that the sentences awarded to the appellant was rather severe. The appellant is in judicial lock up serving imprisonment under the impugned judgment dated 12.6.1988. This means that he has already served imprisonment for about 2 years under the impugned judgment.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, the conviction of Ghulam Qadir accused-appellant under sec*' .. 17 of Emigration Act is maintained but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one already undergone by him. Similarly, the conviction of Ghulam Qadir under section 22 Emigration Act is maintained and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one already undergone by him but the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) or in defauIt two years R.I. Is maintained. A sum of Rs. 90,(KK)/- out H fine, if recovered, will be paid as compensation as per direction of the trial Court. This appeal is dismissed subject to above modification.