' Fazal-e-Rabbi and Mst. Khalida were tried under section 294, P. P. C. By Malik Muhammad Afzal Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi who vide his judgment dated 27-3-1976, found them guilty of offence so charged against them. Mst. Khalida confessed her guilt and was sentenced to a fine of Rs, 50 only while Fazal-e-Rabbi was sentenced to three months' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 500 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month' R. I. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence Fazal-e-Rabbi filed an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who was pleased to dismiss the same on 24-5-1977. Hence this revision petition was admitted on 2-6- 1977.
2. On the initial stages when this revision petition was argued before me for admission purpose, it was brought to my notice that the judgment in this case could not be obtained as according to the chit placed on the file it was in the category of undelivered judgments. There was also an affidavit filed by Raja Bashir Ahmad, a relation of the petitioner, to the effect that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had orally announced the judgment but did not write the same. It was submitted that in view of these special circumstances the petitioner is entitled to interim bail because by the time the judgment was delivered and made available to him, he might have undergone the entire sentence. The petitioner was, therefore, released on interim bail and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was asked to comment on the contentions so made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has denied the allegations that the judgment was unwritten on 24-5-1977 but has accepted that it might not have been delivered to the Copying Department because in many cases the judgments were kept in the office to be put up before the Presiding Officer for correction, etc. The case being of a short sentence was fixed for hearing before this Court today.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Rehmatullaly the only public witness has been proved as a stock witness as this witness accepted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that he might have appeared in 100 cases on behalf of the police. According to the learned counsel the case against the petitioner rests on the ocular testimony of two prosecution witnesses i,e, the A. S. I. And the S. I.
Whereas the petitioner has produced two defence witnesses in his favour to support that he was a person of good character and was taken away by the Police from his house and was not caught red-handed as stated by the Sub-Inspector as well as the Assistant Sub-Inspector. It has also been stated that in case the plea of the petitioner does not prevail with this Court, the severity of the sentence may be taken into consideration and it would be nothing but a moral lapse on the part of the young man with the consent of Mst. Khalida who was privy to this offence. He has also argued that the case of the petitioner should have been treated at par with that of Mst. Khalida at the, most and the sentence of three months' R. I. And a fine -of Rs, 500 is out of proportion. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the very fact that Mst. Khalida has accepted the guilt makes the case of the petitioner quite vulnerable particularly when it was found that he was under the influence of liquor during that odd hour of the day. He has supported the finding of the Court in extenso and has prayed that the same may be maintained.
4. 1 have given my anxious thought to the contentions so raised by both the parties and have perused the record carefully with the assistance of both the learned counsel. As far as the finding of conviction is concerned, I am absolutely in agreement with the learned trial Court as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge because the confession of Mst. Khalida and the drunkenness of the petitioner would go a long way to establish that they were correctly convicted for the offence with which they were charged. However, I do feel that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is quite severe one. He is a young man and has committed this moral lapse unde the influence of liquor. He has been separately challaned for that offence under the Excise Act and has also been punished.
That would by itself be a sufficient punishment and would teach him a lesson not to behave like; this in future. With regard to the offence of obscenity Mst. Khalida cannot' escape the rigour of law just because she was a Pardanashin lady. Rather this fact would have gone against her that despite being a Pardanashin lady, 8 she cooperated with the petitioner and committed an act of obscenity a defined under section 294, P. P. C. The yardstick should have been the j same for both of them and not a different one as used by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. Fazal-e-Rabbi petitioner has suffered 13 days imprisonment in this case and has also paid a sum of Rs, 500 as a fine for his sin. I am of the considered opinion that this is more than sufficient for this moral lapse in view of the conditions prevailing in our society by the import of films in the picture houses full of obscenity which teach quite a wayward life to the citizens of this country. Unless and until the State which is also responsible for the morals of its citizens, make certain laws to create an atmosphere of Islamic morality in this country, the acts of the citizens so influenced by the modern films and environments are not to be dealt with that severity.
5. In view of the above, I consider the sentence of 13 days already undergone as sufficient punishment along with a fine of Rs, 50 which was also awarded to Mst. Khalida. I . As the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount of fine the remaining sum of Rs, 450 will be refunded to him,