| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3042 1970 SLD 3042 = 1970 PCRLJ 195 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 625 of 1966, decided on 30th June 1969.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J
S. M. Chaudhary for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema for A.-G. for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 625 of 1966, decided on 30th June 1969.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J
S. M. Chaudhary for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema for A.-G. for the State.
QAMAR-Convict-Petitioner
VERSUS
THG STATE-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 439
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 439-Revision- Appellate Court while dismissing appeal reducing sentence without issuing notice to State---Non-issuing of notice--A mere technical irregularity affecting State alone-Accused not aggrieved due to reduction of sentence-Contention that no prejudice having been caused to accused, appellate order was unwarranted in law-Rejected. Technically speaking, it would have been appropriate for the Sessions Judge to have issued a notice to the State before reducing the petitioner's sentence, yet it may be observed that the prejudice, if at all, was caused to the State and not to the peti tioner. The State has not made any grievance of this irregularity and as such the legality of an order which was passed in favour of the petitioner and remained unchallenged cannot be questioned by the petitioner at this stage on this technical ground. It would be absurd to conceive that a convict whose sentence is reduced may be deemed to have felt aggrieved even by the reduction of sentence and should challenge the same. King-Emperor v. Dahu Raul A 1 R 1935 P C 89 ref. (b) Sentence-Accused a first offender-Sentence reduced. JUDGMENT This Criminal Revision filed by one Qamar is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Rawalpindi, dated the 30th of April 1969, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for an offence under section 379, P. P. C. recorded by Muhammad Shah M. I. C. Rawalpindi, with an award of one year's R. I. The impugned order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 421, Cr. P. C. dismissing the peti tioner's appeal although the sentence of one year's R. I. awarded to him by the learned trial Court was reduced to nine months R. I. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which found favour with me at the time of the admission of this petition to a regular hearing was that while on the one hand the petitioner was allegedly caught almost red-handed and a purse containing a sum of Rs. 51, and a passport size photo of Muhammad Yasin complainant we're recovered from his possession, the police had sought his custody vide…