1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we find no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court so far as petitioner No.1 (Bahadur Khan son of Dessondi) and petitioner No.4 (Muhammad Ilyas son of Bahadur Khan) are concerned. The petition filed on their behalf is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. However, so far as the remaining petitioners are concerned namely Sooba Khan son of Dessondi, Allah Ditta son of Fateh Din, Muhammad Sajjad son of Bahadur Khan and Muhammad Iqbal son of Bahadur Khan, their role in the transaction appears to have been comparatively minor. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, has already reduced their sentence to that already undergone by them, but did not interfere with the sentence of fine, imposed on them.
3. In our opinion, the imposition of the sentence of fine too, in the circumstances of the case, required interference.
4. Notice was issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab and Mr. Walayat Umar, Advocate, Supreme Court, has appeared.
5. We convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same in relation to Sooba Khan son of Dessondi, Allah Ditta son of Fateh Din, Muhammad Sajjad son of Bahadur Khan and Muhammad Iqbal son of Bahadur Khan. The result is that the judgment of the High Court dated 27-2-1991 qua them so far as imposition of sentence of fine is concerned, is set aside. , The overall result is that the appeal of Bahadur Khan and Muhammad Ilyas stands rejected, but that of Sooba Khan, Allah Ditta, Sajjad and Muhammad Iqbal is allowed in terms indicated above.