1. ' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No,748 of 2000.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the, learned trial Magistrate under section 320: P.P.C. And was sentenced to two years' R.I., and also to pay Diyat amounting to Rs,1,70,610. The vehicle was also taken into custody and it is informed that the same was subsequently confiscated in favour of the State in order to realise the amount of Diyat. Against that judgment dated 17-2-1999, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab which was dismissed by him vide impugned judgment dated 10-10-2000, as such, the conviction of the petitioner under section 320, P.P.C. Was upheld and maintained. Apart from the appeal, Muhammad Afzal complainant filed a revision praying for enhancement of sentence.
3. The complainant's revision was accepted in the sense that the sentence of imprisonment was not enhanced. However, the amount of Diyat was enhanced from Rs,1,70,610 to Rs,2,51,625.40 as according to the Notification issued by the Federal Government for the year when the offence was committed it had been notified as such. Another revision which was also filed by Muhammad Ijaz owner of the vehicle praying that the petitioner is only a driver of the vehicle and as such, he is owner of the vehicle, the same may be released. This revision was allowed and the vehicle was released in his favour.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the sentence of imprisonment has been practically served out by him, the only sentence remains to be unserved 'is the payment of Diyat. It is pleaded that the appellant has no source whatsoever to pay the amount of Diyat. However, if he is released on bail, as per provisions of section 331, P.P.C. He will arrange payment of the same within a period of three years in 36 equal instalments. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has relied upon Amjad Mahmood v. The State (2001 PSC (Crl.) 222) wherein their Lordships in the Supreme Court ordered that the convict who had been sentenced to pay Diyat and daman be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum equivalent to that of amount of diyat and daman and he was permitted three years time to pay the amount in 36 instalments. It was further directed that in case he failed to make the payment then the convict be taken into custody and he would suffer simple imprisonment until the amount is paid in full by him. Another judgment i.e, Muhammad Iqbal and others v. The State (2001 M LD 1100) by a Division Bench of this Court has been cited wherein the above said ruling made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed and the convict-appellant was released on bail.
4. 4 . Respectfully following the rule laid down in the two above quoted cases, I would direct that after the petitioner has served out his sentence of imprisonment of two years which, of cource, will be calculated by adding the remission and concessions extended to him, the petitioner will be released on bail for a period of three years on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,51,625.40 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab. He will make the payment of the same in 36 equal monthly instalments to the legal heirs of the victim Muhammad Farooq Tanvir. In case the amount is not paid during the period of three years then the petitioner will be taken back into custody and kept in Jail and he will be treated as a convict undergoing simple imprisonment. As the conviction of the appellant has not been assailed, therefore, the same is upheld and maintained. Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2001 and the revision petition are disposed of in the above terms.