RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.- The petitioners, Ramzan son of Bakho, Muhammad Yousaf son of Chakar and Muhammad Nawaz son of Noor Muhammad, have moved this criminal revision under section 439 Cr.P.C, against the judgment of their conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Tandlianwala on 26.8.1975 proceeded to convict and sentence the petitioners under section 382 PPC to undergo two years R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs.500/- each and in defauIt thereof to suffer further R.I. For six months. They were also convicted and sentenced under section 325/34 PPC to undergo one year's R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.200/- each and in defauIt thereof to suffer further 3 month's R.I. Each. Both the sentences of the petitioners were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners went in appeal which was heard and partly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 3.10.1978. The sentence of the petitioners was reduced from two years R.I. To one year's R.I. Each and amount of fine was also readuced from Rs.500/- each to Rs.200/- each and in defauIt thereof to suffer further two months R.I. Each. The conviction and sentence under section 325/34 PPC was, however, maintained but the amount of fine was reduced from Rs.200/- each to Rs.100/- each and in defauIt thereof to sufferfurther one month's R.I. Each. It was also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge their conviction and instead requested for taking a lenient view in the matter, in view of the fact that the offence was committed about 17 years back.
3. The allegation is that the petitioners were carrying away bundles of cotton. On seeing the witnesses the petitioners ran away from the spot.The witnesses chased the petitioners. Further allegation is that Ramzan, petitioner, inflicted a Dang blow which landed on the person of Jagdev and the petitioners ran away leaving behind the bundles of cotton and the stick. The injured Jagdev was taken to Hospital Tandlianwala where he was given the medical treatment. The Doctor found two injuries by blunt weapon on the person of Jagev. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Dr.Ghulam Rasool PW1, Wali Muhammad PW2, Jagdev PW3, Baig PW4, Ghulam PWS and Raiz Hussain ASI Pw6. The petitioners while making a statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations levelled against them and produced Balia DW1 and Muhammad Amir DW2 in support of their plea.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my view, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the learned counsel did not challenge the conviction of the petitioners. The only request of the learned counsel is that a lenient view may be taken in the case. The occurrence in the case took place about 17 years ago. The learned Additional Advocate General has no objection if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not think it fit and just to send the petitioners back to Jail to serve out their remaining sentence after the expiry of about 17 years. Accordingly, I take a lenient view in the case and while maintaining the conviction, sentence the petitioners to the period already undergone by them. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.