' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---By a common judgment we propose to dispose Special Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos.165 and 166 of 1999 as they arise out of one and the same judgment.
2. Appellants Wahid alias Farhan and Humayoon have assailed judgment, dated 28-10-1999, passed by Mr. Arshad Noor Khan, Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi, whereby they were convicted under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years and fine of Rs,25,000 each and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For one year. They were also convicted under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and were sentenced to suffer R.I. For 7 years and a fine of Rs,25,000 each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were ordered to suffer R.I. For one year more. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10-7-1999 at about 2-45 p.m. The -appellants snatched Suzuki Hi-roof, bearing registration No,CK-1596, model 1997 on pistol point from complainant Nazeer Ahmed, while he was passing from near Bungalow No,B-71, Gulistan-e- Mustafa, Malir, Karachi and fled away. Thereafter, the complainant went and narrated the facts to his employer Asim, who accompanied him and went to police station, but their case was not registered, as such they started searching personally. It was on 13-7-1999 when case regarding the incident was lodged by AlFalah Police. The case of prosecution further is that on 13-7-1999 the appellants were arrested and snatched vehicle was recovered from their possession after an encounter with Al-Falah Police and another F.I.R. No,77 of 1999 was also registered under sections 324/353, P.P.C. The appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation they were sent up to face trial before the abovementioned Court.
4. A charge was framed against the appellants under section 392/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7-B of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. At trial the prosecution examined P.W. Nazeer Ahmed, P.W. Raja Muhammad Javed, P.W. P.C.
Anwar Sher, P.W. Rao Muhammad Iqbal, P.W. Judicial Magistrate, Parvez Qadir- Memon and P.W.
P.C. Muhammad Ateeq, P.W. S.-I. Farhan Ahmed Siddiqui, whereas gave up Inspector Rao Muhammad Aslam and then the prosecution closed its side.
6. The appellants in their respective statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the commission of offence and pleaded their innocence. Appellant Wahid stated that while he was passing near the place of incident, he sustained injuries because of reckless firing of police party and after his arrest the weapons as well as alleged Suzuki were foisted upon him. They neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in defence.
7. We have heard Messrs Shahadat Awan and Hassan Jaffer Rizvi for the appellants and Mr. Syed Jalil A. Hashmi, Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the State and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
8. At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged offence is regarding vehicle snatching, as such the charge should have been framed in this case under section 7-A punishable under section 7-B of the Act, as such they submit that the maximum punishment provided is 7 years. They further stated that they would be satisfied if the substantive sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years under section 392, P.P.C. And the sentence in both provisions of law, i.e, 392/34, P.P.C. And section 7-B of the Act are ordered to run concurrently, to which the learned A.A.-G. Has no objection.
9. We have gone through the contents of the case of prosecution and evidence. It clearly transpires that the offence alleged is of vehicle snatching, which, according to the Act, is punishable under section 7-B with 7 years' R.I. And fine. Accordingly, we reduce the sentence from 10 years to 7 years'
R.I. Under section 392/34, P.P.C. And maintain the conviction and sentence under section 7-B of the Act. However, we maintain the fine of Rs,25,000 but reduce its sentence from one year to six months in case of default of payment of fine. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Be extended to the appellants and the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants are ordered to run concurrently.