1. ' The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner Zafar was tried by Magistrate Ist Class, Jauharabad, for an offence under section 411 PPC, and convicted to two years' R.I. On 28-6- 1979. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 208-1979. In the present Revision the petitioner challenges the orders of the Courts below.
2. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner has not been proved at all. Submits that the recovery of stolen articles was effected from the petitioner after 7/8 months of the registration of the case, therefore, in such circumstances, the prosecution had to prove that the articles in question were retained by the petitioner knowing them to be stolen, which the prosecution has not done. Submits that the recovery witness may not be relied upon because he is a chance witness. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with their assistance.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced nine witnesses. Main witnesses are those who had identified their cattle head which were found in the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but no motive for false involvement of the petitioner was suggested to them. After going through their evidence I am convinced that they are independent witnesses and inspire confidence. In these circumstances, no exception to the judgments of both the Courts below can he taken.
4. ' The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, needs consideration, which is that the petitioner was arrested on 20th of March, 1979 and since then he is facing the rigors of the prosecution, therefore, the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. The petitioner was arrested on 20-3-1979 and was convicted on 28-6-1979. Thereafter his appeal failed on 20-8-1979. Since then his revision could not he heard. It is ten years now. It may not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner behind the bars to serve the remaining part of his sentence after a period of ten years. I have noticed that the petitioner has already undergone three months of his sentence. In such circumstances, it would adequately meet the ends of justice.
5. ' For what has been discussed above, while dismissing the revision, reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him.