' Muhammad Sabir and his brother Muhammad Anwar sons of Allah Jawaya were tried under section 382, P.P.C. By Magistrate 1st Class Naushera, District Khushab who vide judgment dated 28- 12-1982 finding Muhammad Sabir guilty convicted and sentenced him for three years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,500 or in default of payment of fine to suffer three months' R.I. Muhammad Anwar co- accused was awarded sentence of two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,300 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For two months. The conviction and sentence of Muhammad Sabir petitioner was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab who vide judgment dated 20-3-1983 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as time-barred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court announced the judgment on 28-12-1982 on which date the petitioner was not present in Court and thereafter he was arrested on 12-2-1983. He submits that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the judgment, therefore, the appeal could not be dismissed as time-barred.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully. The learned trial Court heard the arguments in the case on 21-12-1982 on which date the petitioner was present in Court and the case was adjourned to 28-12-1982 for announcement of the judgment but the petitioner did not turn up on this date. He in fact disappeared after conviction in another case on 26-12-1982 and, therefore, was arrested on 12-2- 1983. The petitioner intentionally avoided to appear before the Court on 26-12-1982 and 28-12-1982 and ultimately absconded, he, therefore, being fugitive from law was not entitled to any concession or leniency.
4. Anyhow, while looking at the case on merits, there is no exception to the finding of the learned trial Court. The eye-witnesses are independent and confidence inspiring and there is nothing on the record to suggest that they deposed falsely against the petitioner. Further the ocular account also seeks' enough corroboration from the evidence of recovery and the evidence available on record is more than sufficient to establish the charge against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel without seriously challenging the conviction of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted in 1982 and he is facing agony of the criminal case for the last about one decade. He prays that the sentence already undergone be considered sufficient in the facts of the case. Considering this aspect of the matter, I feel that there would be no useful purpose to send the petitioner to jail after such a long time, and, therefore, taking a lenient view reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. With this modification this revision is dismissed.