Petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, was sent up for trial by Police Station City Sargodha, for an offence under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The trial Cour vide its judgment dated 26-7-1990, convicted and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default six months' R.I. Convict appealed. Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 4-9-1990, dismissed the appeal. In the present revision the petitioner impugn the judgments of both the Courts below.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case is fake. The petitioner was already in custody of the police but in the instant case he was shown to have been present outside and then apprehended. Argues that there are material discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, therefore, no conviction could be awarded on such an evidence. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than eight months of his imprisonment and being the sole earning member of the family may not be sent behind the bar but the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the judgment impugned. Both the Courts below had given cogent reasons for convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner however, requires consideration. The petitioner has undergone more than eight months of imprisonment. There is no allegation that he had indulged in the sale of narcotics. In these circumstances, I feel sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is maintained. Petition is disposed of in these terms.