Petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, was tried by Special Magistrate, WAPDA, for an offence under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, who vide his judgment, dated 20-7-1986, convicted and sentenced him to six months' R.I. The convict appealed which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge,, Sialkot, vide his judgment, dated 11-11-1986. In the present revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of both the Courts below.
It was contended by learned counsel,, for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner was not proved at all. Submitted that there was no evidence to the effect that electricity was actually being consumed,, by the petitioner. Lastly, it was submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 17-2- 1982, and ever since then the petitioner is facing the hardship of trial, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, would adequately meet the ends of justice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. I have noticed that two employees of the WAPDA had appeared as P.W s. And both of them stated that no electricity meter was installed in the house of the petitioner but he had taken direct connection from the electricity pole and the electricity was being consumed. The petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he had admitted that the were P.1 belonged to him. In these circumstances, I feel prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond 'doubt; especially when the witnesses were not even suggested that they had any enmity with the petitioner or any motive for the false involvement. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone some portion of his imprisonment, which would adequately meet the ends of justice, has some force. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1982 and since then the petitioner is facing hardship of trial. He was convicted to six months' R.I. Petitioner has undergone about 2 and half months of imprisonment. In these circumstances, while dismissing the revision, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner The revision is dismissed.