' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---Through a short order dated 29-1-2003 we had converted Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No, I21 of 2003 into an appeal and had partly allowed the same by reducing the term of the sentence of imprisonment from three years' R.I. To a term of imprisonment already suffered by the appellant after maintaining the conviction recorded against him. Here are the reasons therefore.
2. Farrukh Rafiq Sheikh appellant is the Chief Executive ofMessrs S.B. Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. And is also the owner of a privatebonded warehouse under Licence No,LHR/96. It was the case of the prosecution that under Bill of Entry No,02488, dated 19-11-1996 and Bill of Entry No,03386, dated 6-1- 1997 some spare parts of diesel engines which had been imported from China had been in bonded in the said warehouse which had not been cleared after payment of the requisite duties and that on 22-3-1999,, on inspection of the said warehouse, it transpired that the said spare parts were missing from the said warehouse having been illegally removed from there without payment of the requisite duties. Consequently an F.I.R. Bearing No,6 of 1999 was registered at Police Station, Investigation and Prosecution Cell of the Collectorate of Customs, Lahore on 26-3-1999 on the information offered by Farhat Bukhari, Inspector Customs (P.W.2) for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under sections 156(1), 58, 59, 61, 62 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969.
3. As a result of the trial, Farrukh Rafiq appellant was found guilty and resultantly convicted under section 156(1)(62) of the Customs Act through a judgment dated 17-10-2002 of the learned Special Judge (Customs) at Lahore and was punished to suffer three years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,25,000 or to undergo two months' S.I. In default of payment of the said fine. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, allowed to the appellant.
4. The said conviction and punishment of the appellant was impugned before the Lahore High Court through Criminal Appeal No,1800 of 2002 which appeal was dismissed by the High Court through a judgment dated 22-11-2002.
5. Having vehemently argued the case before us at some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner ultimately decided, and justifiably, so not to question the conviction recorded against the petitioner and instead elected to pray for reduction in the quantum of sentence essentially on the ground that the. Petitioner had since paid about three millions of rupees adjudged as the customs duty payable in respect of the alleged illegally removed items from the bonded warehouse in question and that on an appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal under the Customs Act, further departmental proceedings against the petitioner had been stayed. This position was confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the Customs Department and a commitment of the petitioner was also conveyed to us that he would readily pay whatever further amount of customs duty etc. If any, is found to be payable by him as a result of the above mentioned departmental proceedings.
6. It was in view of the fact that the petitioner had paid the custom duty amounting to Rs,28 million; the fact that the petitioner had committed himself to pay any further duty with respect to the items in question as may be found payable by him and the fact that the learned Tribunal under the Customs Act was seized of the matter in question on the departmental side and had also stayed further proceedings against the petitioner that we had found that the sentence of imprisonment already suffered by the petitioner would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. It was for these reasons that we had converted Criminal Petition No,12-L of 2003 into appeal and had while maintaining the conviction recorded against the appellant, reduced the sentence of three years' R.I. Into a term of imprisonment already suffered by him.
8. This appeal was thus disposed of in the above terms.
Sentence reduced.