' I have carefully examined the record of the trial Court and closely scrutinized the evidence produced in this case by the prosecution. The learned trial Magistrate after elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence recorded a finding that the present petitioner along with his co-accused Khurshid Ahmad were proved to have retained the stolen property knowing it to be stolen and further sold it with a dishonest intention. The petitioner along with his co-accused Khurshid Ahmad were, therefore, held guilty under section 411, P.P.C. And both of them were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For one year by judgment dated 30-6-1975. The appeal filed by the petitioner along with his co-accused Khurshid Ahmad was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore by judgment, dated 11-2-1977 which has been assailed in this revision petition.
2. The main point on which this revision petition was admitted as is manifest from order dated 16- 6-1977 was that the present petitioner was merely an attesting witness of the receipt by which his co-accused Khurshid Ahmad sold the stolen scooter to Shahid Riaz the other co-accused who was acquitted, therefore, he could not be convicted under section 411, P.P.C. I have examined the relevant receipt Exh.P.B. And the evidence of Hassan son of Muhammad Ali who appeared as P.W.12 i,e, the scribe of the receipt from which it is clear that the petitioner was not merely an attesting witness of the receipt but had thumb-marked the same as one of the sellers of the stolen scooter in dispute. There is over-whelming evidence on the record that the petitioner along with Khurshid Ahmad retained the stolen scooter with them knowing it to be stolen and with dishonest intention sold the same. I am satisfied that the findings recorded by both the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or misreading, misconstruction and non-consideration of any evidence on the record justifying interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. The finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is fully justified by evidence on the record which is perfectly valid.
3. I have considered the case regarding quantum of sentence. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11-2-1977 on which date according to judgment the petitioner was handcuffed and imprisoned. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 17- 6-1977. Nobody has appeared on behalf of State also. The period of about 11 years have passed since the admission of this revision petition. There is nothing in the two judgments of the Courts below that the petitioner was habitual offender or was involved in any other case. In this view of the matter and with an idea to reform the petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to send him again behind the bar after such a long time. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. With this reduction in the sentence the revision petition is otherwise dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby discharged. .