Muhammad Sharif appellant, who at the relevant time was an A.S.I. Of the Police, was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujrat for committing an offence punishable under section 228, P.P.C. As he had, on 29-11-1966, arrested Muhammad Sharif accused despite his interim pre- arrest bail had been extended by that Court in a case, and had kept him in prison for a number of days in spite of having full knowledge that the accused was on bail, specifically when he had been so told by the accused as also by the clerk of his counsel.
2. It appears that during the trial the appellant had taken up the position that he was under the impression that, like the other co-accused, whose pre-arrest bail had been refused on account of their absence, Muhammad Sharif accused too was declined bail and for that reason he arrested him due to misunderstanding. He submitted apology for having done so. The learned trial Judge did not believe him and on the conclusion of the trial, vide his judgment, dated 16-12-1986, convicting him under section 228, sentenced him to a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to undergo 1-1/2 months' R.I.
3. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant came up in appeal but he has not pursued it, despite notice having been despatched to him at his home address, nor he has caused the appearance of his counsel. Therefore, his appeal has been heard in his absence and with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the State.
4. The appellant had, after taking up the defence in the manner aforesaid, eventually submitted apology by admitting his fault. Learned trial Judge viewed it as a deliberate act on the part of the appellant and holding him liable for the commission of offence, convicted and sentenced him for an offence punishable under section 228, P.P.C.
5. I am inclined to believe that in the circumstances of the case the element of deliberateness on the part of the appellant was present in the act attributed to him and he was rightly convicted under the aforesaid provisions of law. However, since his sentence appears to be somewhat excessive, his sentence of fine is reduced from Rs.1,000 to Rs.500 and the imprisonment m lieu thereof from 1-1/2 months to one months' S.I. Only. It should be conveyed to him by sending him a copy of this judgment at his home address as also through Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, who shall place it on his service record for further necessary action against him.