' Muhammad Yaqoob son of Khushi Muhammad petitioner was tried for the charge under section 420/406, P.P.C. And having been found guilty was convicted and sentenced for five years' R.I. By Magistrate 1st Class, Joharabad vide judgment dated 14-10-1984. His conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khoshab vide judgment, dated 28-3-1992 dismissing his appeal being time-barred.
2. Muhammad Asadullah complainant P.W.1 lodged report Exh.PA. Stating that the petitioner, on returning from Saudi Arabia offered him for work visa against payment of Rs,12,500. The complainant and Muhammad Sharif P.W. Paid Rs,25,000 to Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner for providing them job visas in Saudi Arabia but later on the petitioner neither provided them visas nor returned the amount in question. The accused denied the charge and pleaded innocence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No,520 of 1984 before this Court against his conviction awarded by the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed on 29-5-1991 on the ground of non-maintainbility with the observation that petitioner may prefer appeal before the proper forum. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 14-10- 1984 on 18-2-1992 with the delay of about 8 years with the explanation that due to mistaken advice the appeal was preferred in the High Court instead of filing it before the Sessions Court. He contends that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and deliberate. On merits he submitted that it is a civil liability and no criminal case is made out against the accused. He however, does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The filing of appeal by the petitioner in this Court under a mistaken advice was a ground to condone delay for the period for which the appeal remained pending for disposal and not beyond that. In the present case the appeal was dismissed by this Court on 29-5-1991 whereas the petitioner filed appeal before Sessions Court on 18-2-1992. The certified copy of the order was supplied to him on 1-8-1991. There is no explanation for not filing the appeal from 1-8-1991 to 18-2- 1992 for a period of about seven months.
6. Looking at the evidence available on record the petitioner has even no case on merits. Both the P.Ws, have categorically stated the receipt of money by the petitioner on the false pretext for providing them visas for Saudi Arabia. He therefore, in a deceitful manner extracted money from P.Ws. Calling for criminal liability under section 420/406, P.P.C. And not a civil dispute as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already served a period of 17 months which may be considered sufficient sentence in the facts of the present case. I feel that in the circumstances of the case period of sentence already served by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and therefore, his sentence is reduced to already undergone. However, it has been noticed that the petitioner was also liable to be imposed the sentence of fine but the learned trial Court omitted to pass any order in this behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts notice and prayed for imposition of nominal fine. The petitioner is imposed a fine of Rs,5,000 to be deposited within three months, failing which he shall suffer three months' S.I. With this modification in the sentence, this revision petition is disposed of.