This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,345 of 2001 directed against the judgment dated 31-1-2001 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Lahore whereby he convicted the appellant under section 7(iii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default six months' R.I.
2. The brief facts as narrated by Dr. Mubarak Jamal Mehadi complainant are that he got published advertisement in `Daily Jang' for sale of car No LXM 8440 and many customers contacted him in this regard. On 9-10-2000 the appellant alongwith his associate contacted him on telephone and then visited his house and offered Rs,3,20,000 which was not accepted by him. After some time the said two persons after making contact on telephone again visited his house and the appellant took his car for road testing while the second person remained there. The appellant did not come back compelling the him to contact Emergency Police on "15". Police came there and present associate of accused-appellant was handed over to them.
3. On 17-10-2000 Mian Khan, A.S.I. recovered stolen Car P.1 from the appellant vide memo. Exh.P.D.
After usual investigation challan was prepared against the appellant and was submitted for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 5 witnesses including Investigating Officer, eyewitnesses and other relevant persons. Thereafter statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that no case under Terrorist Act is made out against the appellant, that the Anti-Terrorist Court has no jurisdiction to try this case, that appellant is behind the bars for the last one year and 2 months, that no identification parade was held in the instant case.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that as far as Terrorism laws are concerned there are not applicable in this case and that the case, if any, that is under section 420, P.P.C.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The complainant who had lodged the F.I.R. had given an advertisement in daily `fang' in order to sell his car. that he received a telephone call from two persons i,e, the appellant and other one is not named, at his house. Matter was settled between them at Rs,3,50,000. In the meanwhile the appellant took away the car for road testing while the other persons remained with him. When the appellant did not come back, the complainant contacted the emergency police at phone No,15. The police came there and lodged the F.I.R. there. The car was recovered on 17-10-2000 by Mian Khan A.S.I., P:W.1 and Basharat Ali H.O during Naka at Mohlanwal. Accused were intercepted and car was taken into custody and complainant was summoned there. He not only identified the car but also the present appellant.
Challan was also submitted to A.T.A Court where charge was framed under section 6-D under Anti- Terrorism Act. The appellant was convicted under section 7 of A.T.A. Learned Additional Advocate General is right in submitting before me that as far Anti-Terrorism Act is concerned, that is not applicable in this case and he has rightly pointed out that case under section 420, P.P,C. is made out because the complainant was cheated by present appellant. Section 420, P.P.C. is reproduced below:- "420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of Property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or scaled, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In fact the appellant had deceived the complainant and dishonestly induces him to deliver his property which definitely fall under section 420, P.P.C. and not under the Terrorist Act.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I convert the sentence of the appellant from section 7 A.T.A to section 420, P.P.C. The sentence awarded to him is reduced from 7 years to 3 years. Sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs,20,000 to Rs,10,000, or in default three months S.I. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.0 is also granted to him. With these observations this appeal stands disposed of.