Consistency of PWs during Cross Examination
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man convicted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with issuing a cheque that bounces due to insufficient funds or a closed account, essentially dishonest cheque issuance. He had been sentenced by a trial court in Khushab to three years of simple imprisonment plus a fine, and his appeal against that conviction had already been dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge. He then filed a criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court.
Notably, the petitioner's lawyer did not challenge the conviction itself, only asking for a reduced sentence, citing that the petitioner was a first-time offender who had already spent about one year, five months, and twenty-three days in jail. The prosecution and complainant's lawyers did not object to this request.
The High Court reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecution had clearly proven the offense occurred, and that the key witnesses, including the complainant, gave consistent testimony even under lengthy cross-examination, with no major contradictions. Because of this, the court upheld the conviction as correctly decided.
However, considering the time already served, the court reduced the sentence to match the period the petitioner had already spent in jail, while keeping the fine and default punishment unchanged. This case illustrates how courts balance upholding valid convictions with showing leniency in sentencing based on time already served and witness credibility.
یہ مقدمہ ایک ایسے شخص سے متعلق ہے جسے پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی دفعہ 489-ایف کے تحت سزا سنائی گئی تھی، جو ناکافی رقم یا بند اکاؤنٹ کی وجہ سے واپس ہونے والے چیک جاری کرنے، یعنی بددیانتی پر مبنی چیک کے اجراء سے متعلق ہے۔ ضلع خوشاب کی ٹرائل کورٹ نے اسے تین سال قید بامشقت نہیں بلکہ سادہ قید کے ساتھ جرمانے کی سزا سنائی تھی، اور ایڈیشنل سیشن جج کی عدالت میں اس سزا کے خلاف دائر کی گئی اپیل بھی پہلے ہی مسترد ہو چکی تھی۔ اس کے بعد ملزم نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں فوجداری نظرثانی کی درخواست دائر کی۔
قابلِ ذکر بات یہ ہے کہ درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے سزا کے خلاف نہیں بلکہ صرف سزا میں کمی کی استدعا کی، اور یہ دلیل دی کہ درخواست گزار پہلی بار جرم کا مرتکب ہوا ہے اور وہ پہلے ہی تقریباً ایک سال، پانچ ماہ اور تیئیس دن قید کاٹ چکا ہے۔ استغاثہ اور مدعی کے وکلاء نے اس درخواست پر کوئی اعتراض نہیں کیا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 232 [Lahore High Court, Lahore] Present: Miss Aalia Neelum , J. AHMAD SHER--Petitioner versus STATE etc.--Respondents Crl. Rev. No. 4856 of 2021, decided on 23.2.2021. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 435/439--Criminal revision--The petitioner has not opted to assail conviction, rendered by learned trial Court against petitioner, therefore, High Court does not feel it necessary to discuss in detail prosecution evidence available on record--However, High Court finds that prosecution had undoubtedly proved factum of occurrence--High Court does not find material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses--It is also proved from evidence on record that prosecution witnesses i.e. (PW-5)-the complainant and (PW-8) have remained consistent, despite lengthy cross-examination--Petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced by trial Court and Addl. Sessions Judge rightly dismissed appeal--The petitioner had already served out 01-Year 05-months and 23-days in jail--Consequently, ends of justice will be served by maintaining conviction of petitioner inflicted by trial Court on him but reducing sentence to period already undergone by petitioner, leaving order of punishment intact in respect of order of payment of fine and punishment, awarded in default of payment of fine--This criminal revision stands dismissed with modification in sentence. [Para 6 & 7] A & B Mr. Habib Ullah Bhatti , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Nauman Siddiq , Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Abdul Rehman . Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing 23.2.2021. Judgment This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab in criminal appeal No. 06/2020. Wherefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate 1st Class, Khushab convicted the petitioner under Section 489-F, PPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 years with the direction to pay Rs. 10,000/-as fine and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01-month. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the petitioner. Wherefore, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.09.2020 of dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 06/2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab and judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Khushab in case F.I.R No. 25 of 2018, dated 15.01.2018, offence under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at Police Station City Jauharabad, District Khushab. The petitioner-Ahmad Sher has come up with this revision petition.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R (Ex.PB) lodged on the complaint (Ex.PA) of Taimoor Nawaz Khan, (PW-5)-the complainant is that the petitioner issued the cheque in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured on its presentation in the Bank.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has opted not to object conviction of the petitioner, however, prayed for reduction in his sentence. The petitioner is the first offender and has already undergone 01-year, 05-months and 23-days imprisonment out of the actual sentence. So, a lenient view may be taken. 4 On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have no objection upon the reduction of sentence of the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not opted to assail conviction, rendered by the learned trial Court against the petitioner, therefore, this Court does not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the prosecution evidence available on the record. However, this Court finds that the prosecution had undoubtedly proved the factum of occurrence. This Court does not find material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is also proved from the evidence on record that the prosecution witnesses i.e. Taimoor Nawaz Khan (PW-5)-the complainant and Sultan Khan (PW-8) have remained consistent, despite lengthy cross-examination. I am persuaded to hold that the petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the appeal.
7. The report sent by the Superintendent District Jail, Shahpur through letter dated 15.02.2021 reveals that the petitioner had already served out 01-Year 05-months and 23-days in the jail. Consequently, the ends of justice will be served by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner inflicted by the learned trial Court on him but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner, leaving the order of punishment intact in respect of order of payment of fine and the punishment, awarded in default of payment of fine. This criminal revision stands dismissed with modification in sentence. (A.A.K.) Revision dismissed