' The revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-7-1976 of Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 0-5-1975 of M.I.C. Toba Tek Singh, whereof the learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I.
For two years, plus to pay a fine of Rs,500 in default whereof to suffer R.I. For six months.
2. Prosecution case at the trial was that the petitioner was found in possession of stolen bullock of Talib Hussain complainant, knowing the same to be the stolen property. Evidence was led at the trial about the recovery of the bullock from him as well as of his having confessed the crime before the witnesses at the time of the recovery of the bullock. Prosecution in all examined six witnesses in proof of their case.
3. The accused denied the charge while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And examined in defence three witnesses. He had although cross-examined P.W.5 Iqbal and P.W.6 Muhammad Rafiq, A.S.I. But had not cross-examined the complainant, Lal Muhammad, Mehdi Khan and Ghulam Muhammad P.Ws. The recovery of the bullock was effected from the petitioner in the presence of the above-named witnesses.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the revision petition on merits. He has prayed for reduction of sentence as, according to him, the petitioner had lived under constant anxiety for a sufficient period.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that the petition has not been pressed on merits, I have gone through the evidence as well as the impugned judgments. I am of the view that the judgments of both the lower Courts are based on correct A appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for in the conviction recorded against the petitioner. The same, therefore, is maintained.
However, there appears to be enough mitigating circumstance warranting reduction in sentence, in that the case was registered on 31-1-1974, the petitioner after arrest faced the trial till he was convicted by the Magistrate vide order dated 13-5-1975. The appeal filed by him was dismissed on 5-7-1976. The revision petition filed by him against the said order is pending since then. He remained in jail for 17 days after his conviction by the Magistrate, whereafter he was released on suspension of his sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge. - After dismissal of appeal, he remained in jail as convict till 11-2-1977 when his sentence was suspended vide order passed by this Court on 11-2-1977. He has thus already undergone eight months' R.I., out of the sentence of imprisonment B awarded to him. He might have remained in jail during trial as well after his arrest.
The case is pending since 1974, which means that remained under constant anxiety during all these years.
6. Keeping in view the above facts, the sentence petitioner is reduced from two years' R.I. To that of sentence of fine is also set aside. ' the petitioner must have' of imprisonment of the I already undergone.
The .