' Ahmad Din caste Jat, aged -26 years, Umar Din caste Weaver, aged 30 years along with Fazal Din caste Jat, aged 50 years, who were all cultivators by profession were tried under section 167/8/9 of the Land Customs Act, by Syed Nasir Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur, who vide his judgment dated 27-2-1965, while acquitting Fazal Din, convicted Ahmad Din and Umar Din to undergo one year's R. I.
Each. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, they filed two separate appeals.
The appeal of Ahmad Din was dismissed by Captain Muhammad Daud Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore by his order dated 10.2-1966 whereas the appeal of Umar Din was dismissed by Ch. Sultan Khan, Sessions Judge, Lahore by his order dated 28-4-1965. Criminal Revision No. 628 of 1966 was filed by Ahmad Din while Criminal Revision No. 314 of 1965 was preferred by Umar Din. These were admitted by this Court and the petitioners were released on bail. Since the conviction of both these petitioners arises out of the same judgment, I shall dispose of both these cases by this single judgment.
2. Both these petitions have been put up before me after a period of eleven years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Umar Din petitioner has submitted that he is absolutely out of touch with the petitioner and as a considerable period has elapsed, despite his best efforts, he is not in a position to state the whereabouts of the petitioner. Similar is the case with the second revision petition of Ahmad Din. The learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of Umar Din has also undertaken to represent the case of Ahmad Din because the facts of the case are the same and the judgments by which both of them have been convicted are also of the same Magistrate. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that lot of water has flown underneath the bridges since the offence was committed and the conviction was recorded and it will not be in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice to trace them out and send them once again to jail to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. According to the learned counsel this in fact could be a hardship as well as there is a likelihood that if these petitioners are confined in jail along with other inmates, the criminal propensities with which they have once suffered may revive in them.
3. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions so raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and have also perused the record of the case along with the impugned judgments.
The petitioners were found carrying some bags of cardamum when they were arrested by Rangers who were on patrol duty at that time. It was also possible that Fazal Din, who has been acquitted in this case, might be the real culprit. It is a well-settled principle of law that justice delayed is justice denied. If the cases against them would have been taken in hand and disposed of promptly, it would have served as a deterrent to others of their kind. But to call them back now after a period of eleven years, would give an impression to the society, rightly or wrongly, that persons who were set at liberty in the year 1965 are being once again put to the rigour of justice and law by this action their peaceful life to which they have adopted themselves, is being disturbed. Instead of taking a technical view of the matter, I would like to make a pragmatic approach to the problems of our society in which we live, as the laws are always made to assist the society so as allow them to live in tranquility and peace.
4. In view of the lapse of time and the expectation of liberty given to these two petitioners I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if their sentence is reduced to that of already undergone. Therefore, while maintaining their conviction I reduce their sentence to the period already undergone. Since they are on bail, they stand discharged of their bail bonds.