' This Revision Application has arisen in the following circumstances:-
2. The applicant was tried by the learned City & A. D. M., Karachi, for an offence of smuggling and on his plea of guilt, came to be convicted under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and was ordered detention till the rising of the Court, and a fine of Rs, 50,000, or in default to suffer R. I. For 6 months. It appears that the fine was not deposited and he was remanded in custody.
2-A. An appeal was preferred in the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in this Revision.
3. It might as well be mentioned that at the time of the admission, a show-cause notice for the enhancement of the sentence was duly given and a reply to the same has been filed. A faint effort was made by Mr. Mustahson Siddiki, learned counsel for the applicant, contending that the offence of smuggling is not punishable under the law. However, the point was neither raised in the Court of appeal, nor specifically mentioned here; and Mr. Rustom Kaikobad, who also filed his power while the arguments were going on, stopped short by just asking for the indulgence of the Court as the applicant was from Argentina and friendless here. The very fact that he has been in custody for all these four months is a pointer, as mentioned by him, in that direction. Admittedly, he is in custody in the 'C' Class and apart from the period of four months which he had undergone after the conviction, he was also behind the bar for a period of about 14 days, earlier.
4. Mr. S. Rustom Kaikobad states that the applicant cannot arrang the payment of any fine whatsoever, and the lesson he has learnt wil stand him in good stead for the rest of the life. He has also produced befor me a judgment of this Court in criminal Revision, being, No, Cr: Rev. 101 of 1974 (Kees Aggelos v. The State) in which lenient view was taken on the ground that the applicant in that case was a foreigner. Personally I am of the opinion that in cases of organised smuggling, deterrent sentences show d be given, but in this case only fine was awarded, and even that could not be paid. This lends some support to the submission of Mr. Rustom Kaikobad that the applicant is really friendless here.
5. Looking to the circumstances, I will vacate the notice for enhancement of the sentence, and further order that in default of the payment of th fine, the sentence will be reduced to the period already undergone. He would therefore be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some othe4 case.