' The counsel for the appellant points out that the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) has not considered the period of detention that the appellant had suffered during the entire period taken in trial of the appellant and failed to give him the benefit provided by section 382-B, Cr.P.C. At the very outset he has made it clear that for the purpose of this appeal he will be only pressing this point.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was arrested on 13-12-1985 by F.I.A. Police and F.I.R. Under section 18(a) read with section 23 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was registered.
F.I.A. Submitted a challan on 26-12-1985 in the Court of Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer Central, Karachi. Finding it to be difficult to prove the case the F.1.A. Became wiser and submitted another challan under section 473, P.P.C. On the same facts and investigation in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) on 24-9-1986 and filed a report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Before the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer Central, Karachi. The appellant was then acquitted under section 265- K, Cr.P.C. By the Special Judge. The appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,5,000 in default thereof to undergo R.I. For three months more.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the Sessions Judge while awarding the sentence of imprisonment failed to take into account the period he continued to remain in jail when the case against him was pending before the Special Judge. According to him the appellant has remained in custody for almost a period of two years and four months as the appellant was arrested on 13-12-1985 while the trial Judge has taken into account his detention since September 1987. By adding this period the appellant in fact is required to suffer imprisonment for a period over five years when the maximum sentence provided for under section 473, P.P.C. Is seven years. Thus, by computing the total period the sentence awarded in this case is excessive.
4. Mr. A.K. Jatoi, Advocate appearing for the State states that it will be in the interest of justice that the appeal of the appellant is accepted by reducing the sentence to what is already undergone by the appellant.
5. In the circumstances of the present case the sentence so awarded is rather excessive. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant who shall be released forthwith on the payment of fine imposed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), and if he is not required in any other case.
' The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above.