2010 Y L R 2382
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
BHAWAL KHAN ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Revision No. (s) 4 of 2007, decided on 20th May, 2010.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 337 -H(ii) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435 ---Hurt by rash or negligent
act---Acquittal of accused on ground of compromise ---Application for return of amount
deposited in lieu of fine --Applicant/accused had filed application seeking return of amount of
Rs.5000 deposited by him in lieu of fine imposed on him while convicting him under S.337 -
H(ii), P. P. C. as the matter had bee n compromised and accused was acquitted of the charge --
-Amount of fine had already been paid by accused through Superintendent Jail ---No Arsh or
Daman was imposed on accused, and he was only fined ---In case of compromise and on
waiving right of Arsh or Dam an by the victim, amount paid as Arsh or Daman could be
returned to the accused, but in case of fine, return of amount of fine was not possible as that
amount was deposited in favour of State, which could not be refunded, even in case of
acceptance of comp romise and setting aside of conviction order.
Tahir Ali Baloch for Petitioner.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---Instant application has been filed by the applicant
seeking return of amount of Rs.5,000, deposited by him in lieu of fine i mposed on him while
convicting him under section 337 -H(ii) P.P.C. through judgment dated 14 -9-2006 by Judicial
Magistrate, Sibi, as the matter has been compromised, which was accepted by this Court
through order dated 17 -10-2008, whereby he has been acquit ted of the charge.
The perusal of record reveals that a complaint bearing No.28 of 2005 was filed by one Mir
Muhammad before Judicial Magistrate, Sibi, which was registered against present applicant,
on completion of trial through judgment dated 14 -9-2006 the trial Court come to the
conclusion that the charge is established against the accused, present applicant namely
Bahawal Khan who was convicted of the offence under section 337 -H(ii), P.P.C., while
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000, in default he sha ll suffer two months' simple imprisonment.
It is further apparent from record that the applicant preferred appeal, while the complainant
also filed revision petition seeking enhancement. Both the appeal and revision petition were
dismissed by the appellate Court through judgment made on 29 -12-2006. Still feeling
aggrieved of the order the applicant preferred revision petition seeking setting aside of both
the orders of trial and appellate Court. During pendency of the same the parties arrived to a
compromis e, whereby the complainant Mir Muhammad pardoned the applicant and showed
his consent for not conducting any other proceedings against him, nor he wanted to receive
any Arsh or Daman. This compromise was accepted by this Court through order made on 17 -
10-2008, whereby the judgment dated 14 -9-2006 of Judicial Magistrate Sibi and dated 29 -12-
2006 of Additional Sessions Judge -II, Sibi were set aside, while the petitioner/present
applicant was acquitted of the charge. Now the applicant has filed present applica tion for
return of said amount of Rs.5,000 deposited by him.
The matter has been compromised between the parties, while the compromise deed filed
before this Court was accepted and in consequence thereof the applicant stands acquitted of
the charge. In present case the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under
section 337 -H(ii) P.P.C., which is surely a compoundable offence, as such on effecting of
compromise between the parties the Court while accepting the same acquitted the applicant
from the charge. But the only punishment awarded to the applicant was of fine of Rs.5000, in
default he had to suffer two months' simple imprisonment. This fine has already been paid by
him through Superintendent District Jail Sibi. No Arsh or Daman was imp osed on him, rather
he was only fined. As such in case of compromise and on waiving right of Arsh or Daman by
the victim, the amount can be returned to the applicant paid by him as Arsh or Daman, but in
case of fine this is not possible, as the amount is d eposited in favour of State, which cannot be
refunded even in case of acceptance of compromise and setting aside of conviction order.
The application being without merits is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./.66/Q Application dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.