' Appellant Chiragh alongwith his father Waryam was tried by the learned Special Judge (Central) at Faisalabad on the charge under section 17 read with section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Vide the judgment dated 7th of June, 1992, the learned trial Judge found only the appellant guilty of the offence and thus convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For three years and to pay fine of Rs, four thousand, or in default thereof, to further suffer R.I. For three months. Father of the appellant namely Waryam was however acquitted of the charge.
2. Aggrieved by his aforesaid conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred this appeal, which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
3. Prosecution case in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. Is that in the year 1983 the appellant and his father had extorted an amount of Rs,88,000 from various persons on the pretext of sending them abroad and to arrange for their employment there. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That after having received the money, passports and the national identity cards, the appellant and his father instead of sending the persons to Saudi Arabia for employment, sent them to Damascus on visit visa. On arriving there, it is alleged that the appellant got the passports, the return tickets etc. And 500 dollars from each person and thereafter disappeared therefrom. The fleeced persons thus with great difficulty reached Pakistan. After their deportation, the authorities in the F.IA. Conducted an enquiry, as a result thereof, Akbar Ali Inspector F.IA. Lodged the above-noted F.I.R.
' To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the testimony furnished by Abdul Ghaffar P.W.1 who deposed that he was deceitfully deprived of a sum of Rs,18,000 on the pretext of sending him to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Liaqat Ali and Ali Muhammad also paid money to the appellant for this purpose. The witnesses further stated that the passport and tickets were taken by the appellant who took them to Damascus and abandoned them there. Thereafter, they returned to Pakistan with the help of some Pathan. The appellant was arrested in Damascus and was subsequently deported to Pakistan. The witness was cross-examined and it came to light that during the enquiry, Rs,2,800 were returned back by the appellant to the witness. Although the witness denied to have received this amount, but the other witnesses have admitted the receipt of such amounts, therefore, I am of the view that the money was paid back to the witnesses.
' Ata Muhammad P.W.2 stated that the acquitted co-accused Waryam had told him that his son (appellant) was a Colonel in Saudi Arabia, and thus, could manage to procure some employment there for his brother Fazal Muhammad. In this way, the acquitted co-accused induced him to pay Rs,16,000. Like P.W.1 Ali Muhammad also deposed that. He paid the said amount and the appellant took his brother to Syria instead of Saudi Arabia, where, his ticket and passports etc. Were taken away by the appellant. Neither the brother of the witness was sent to Saudi Arabia, nor any employment was procured for him. However, P.W.2 admitted that he did receive Rs,2,800 from the appellant in the police station. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that a Punchayat had convened in the police station and the money was paid there.
4. P.W.3 Liaqat Ali also deposed to the same effect and admitted the receipt of Rs,2,800 from the appellant.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant stated that he was falsely involved in this case. He was a barber by profession, and had nothing to do with this case.
6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, I have carefully gone through the evidence on record, and have heard the various contentions raised by the learned counsel at length. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Investigation Officer of this case was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction should be set aside. I am afraid that the conviction under such circumstances cannot be set aside, as the only course open to this Court would be to remand the case. Learned ' counsel at this stage did not press his argument, and submitted that a lenient view should be taken in favour of the appellant because the conviction as such has not been challenged by the learned counsel on merits.
7. Perusal of the evidence in this case also reveals that the ingredients of the offence have been proved by the prosecution in all material particulars, therefore, the conviction is not open to exception. Learned counsel then argued that it is an old case, and the appellant had faced the enquiry and had undergone the rigours of the trial. Furthermore, he had also paid Rs,2,800 not only to the complainant, but to all others from whom the money was received. In fact, repayment of the amount in the Punchayat or arbitration proves the prosecution case. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view, therefore, I reduce the sentence from three years to 2-1/2 (two and a half years) R.I. Sentence of fine is maintained. With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.