SARDAR MOHAMMAD DOGAR, J.~ The appellants were convicted for having committed contempt of Court and sentenced to undergo SI for six months plus to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each in default whereof to suffer one month SI each by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 7.40.1991.
2. On being issued notice to show cause why they should not be convicted for having committed contempt of Court, they had challenged the correctness of allegations and pleaded innocence.
The learned Single Judge, after recording the statements of Ch. Muhammad Hussain Bailiff and Faqir Masih SI/Addl. SHO of P.S.Chak Jhumra, come to the conclusion that the appellants had taken false plea and they were liable for having committed contempt of Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, after having argued the appeal at some length, sought not to press the same on merits. He prayed for reduction of sentence.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellants, we have gone through the record and we are even otherwise convinced that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment in so far as it pertains to the conviction of the appellants for having committed Contempt of Court. The same is, therefore, maintained. We are, however, inclined to reduce the sentence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
The sentence of six months SI is reduced to three months SI each and the fine of Rs.2,000/-is reduced to Rs.1 ,000/-each in default whereof each will undergo SI for one month.